Public Opinion about Automated and Connected Vehicles in ...€¦ · used to inform public policy, regulation, research, and design of automated vehicles in Australia. It is planned

Public Opinion about Automated and Connected Vehicles in Australia and New Zealand: Results from the 2nd ADVI Public Opinion Survey

December 2018 Selena A. Ledger, Mitchell L. Cunningham, Michael A. Regan

©Australia and New Zealand Driverless Vehicle Initiative Page 2 of 64

Contents AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 4

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 SURVEY DESIGN............................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 DEMOGRAPHICS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE ........................................................................................................... 10 2.3 SURVEY PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

3. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 13

3.1 AWARENESS OF HIGHLY AUTOMATED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 13 3.2 CONCERNS ABOUT AVS ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 AV DRIVING FUNCTIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 15 3.4 SECONDARY TASK ENGAGEMENT..................................................................................................................................... 16 3.5 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF AVS ......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.6 CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TO USE AVS .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.7 WILLINGNESS TO PAY ................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.8 SCENARIOS INVOLVING AUTOMATED CARS ........................................................................................................................ 21 3.9 SAFETY AND AUTOMATED VEHICLES................................................................................................................................. 22 3.10 USE CASES FOR DRIVERLESS PUBLIC TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................... 23 3.11 OWNERSHIP OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES .......................................................................................................................... 24 3.12 PARTIALLY-AUTOMATED VEHICLES ................................................................................................................................ 24 3.13 CONNECTED VEHICLES ................................................................................................................................................ 26

4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................ 27

5. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................................................. 32

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................................................. 51


Author Affiliations Author name Affiliation Selena A. Ledger Australian Road Research Board (ARRB)

Mitchell L. Cunningham Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) The School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Australia

Michael A. Regan Research Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation, The University of New South Wales, Australia

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the following members of the Australian and New Zealand Driverless Vehicle Initiative (ADVI) Survey Working Group who contributed to the design of the survey from which the results in this paper were derived: • Dr Axel Bender - Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) • Steve Cratchley - Suncorp • Associate Prof. Vinayak Dixit - University of New South Wales Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation (rCITI) • Prof. Tim Horberry - Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) • Kamal Weeratunga - Main Roads Western Australia


Executive Summary The Australia and New Zealand Driverless Vehicle Initiative (ADVI), led by the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB), is a consortium of more than 100 local and international partners from government, industry and academia that has come together to accelerate the safe and successful deployment of partially- and fully-automated (completely self-driving) vehicles in Australia and New Zealand. In late 2016, a sub-set of members of ADVI’s Scientific Research Group designed and conducted a 78-item online survey to gauge Australian public awareness, understanding and likely acceptance (acceptability) of partially- and fully-automated vehicles, with the primary focus on fully-automated cars. An additional 15 items were developed and added to the survey in the following year (2017), designed to gauge public opinion about driverless public transport and ride sharing, perceptions about the safety of driverless vehicles, and interest in partially-automated and connected vehicles. In September 2017, the second iteration of the survey which included these 93 items was distributed across all Australian states and territories, and New Zealand, weighted for key demographic characteristics. This is ADVI’s second national survey in Australia, and the first international survey including New Zealand, of public opinion about partially- and fully-automated cars and connected vehicles. In this second iteration of the survey, responses from 5,102 Australian and 1,049 New Zealand respondents were collected and analysed. The survey gauged a range of topics including (a) awareness of automated vehicles, (b) opinions on perceived potential benefits, (c) trust in the technology, (d) perceived concerns, (e) conditions of use, (f) likely engagement in secondary activities and (g) engagement with driverless public transport. Respondents’ willingness to pay for partially- and fully-automated and connected vehicles was also examined. This document contains high-level findings from the second iteration of the survey only and does not analyse differences between the first and second iterations of the survey. Findings from the first iteration of the ADVI survey are available in an earlier report (Regan et al., 2017). Several notable findings emerged. Unless otherwise stated, the findings reported here pertain to all respondents across gender, place of residence and age: • Few Australians and New Zealanders have experienced automated vehicle functions first-hand;

however, most have at least heard of them. • There is a high level of concern amongst Australians and New Zealanders about most issues

surrounding automated vehicles (AVs). • Most respondents were at least somewhat comfortable with an AV undertaking most driving

functions specified in the survey. • Most respondents thought it likely that they would engage in most secondary activities probed

in the survey. However, respondents were most likely to want to observe the scenery and least likely to want to sleep if supported by vehicle automation.

• Respondents’ levels of agreement with the potential benefits of AVs was highly variable.


• More respondents were willing to pay for a fully-automated vehicle (43.1% would pay more) compared to a partially-automated vehicle (34.1% would pay more).

• The mean amount respondents were willing to pay for a fully-automated vehicle on top of their current car was $AUD 13,784; however, the median amount respondents were willing to pay more was $AUD 5,000.

• Currently, older respondents appear to be less accepting of AVs than younger respondents, overall.

• Currently, male respondents appear to be more accepting of AVs than females, overall. • Currently, Australian and New Zealand respondents appear to be largely similar in their

acceptability of AVs, overall. • Attitudes and opinions towards AVs vary considerably across different Australian regions and

New Zealand. However, our results suggest that respondents from the ACT may be currently the most receptive to AVs while respondents from SA and TAS appear to be the least receptive of the technology.

The data in this, and subsequent reports deriving from the ADVI Public Opinion Survey, will be used to inform public policy, regulation, research, and design of automated vehicles in Australia. It is planned that this survey will continue to be repeated every year or so to gauge changes in Australian and New Zealand’s community’s opinion about partly- and fully-automated vehicles that may come about as a result of increased awareness, understanding and exposure to them.


1. Introduction Automated vehicles (AVs) have been defined as ‘…those in which at least some aspects of a safety-critical control function (e.g., steering, throttle, or braking) occur without direct driver input’ (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2013, p. 7). While several different taxonomies have been developed to classify and differentiate between different levels of vehicle automation, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2014) taxonomy is the one most frequently cited. This taxonomy differentiates between six levels of road vehicle automation, ranging from Level 0 (No Automation) to Level 5 (Full Automation), as summarised in Figure 1. AVs are predicted to bring about various societal benefits including potential safety benefits, decreased traffic congestion, gas emissions, and fuel consumption, and increased mobility for the disabled, elderly or impaired (Anderson et al., 2014; Fagnant & Kockelman, 2015). However, for such benefits to come to fruition, the technology needs to be accepted and adopted by the public and their intended users. If members of the public do not accept AVs, they are unlikely to utilise the technology and, therefore, the opportunity for the technology to provide their intended benefits will be limited (Regan, Horberry, & Stevens, 2014). One commonly used method of assessing public acceptability of AVs is through the administration of surveys to populations of interest. A recent public opinion survey of 1533 individuals across the US, UK and Australia revealed that 57% of participants had an overall positive opinion on AVs, with the main expected benefits of AVs including accident reduction, less emissions, and reduced fuel consumption (Schoettle & Sivak, 2014). However, despite this positive outlook, a large proportion of respondents (26%) also expressed high levels of concern about the AV technology itself, such as technology failure and AV performance in difficult or critical situations. Payre, Cestac, and Delhomme (2014) administered an online survey on AV acceptability to 421 French drivers. Results showed that drivers had particularly strong intentions to use AVs when travelling on highways or through heavy congestion, to park autonomously for them, and when they were impaired or intoxicated (e.g., due to alcohol). Furthermore, the study found that men tended to have stronger intentions to use AV technology then women, being one of the first studies to suggest that facets of AV acceptability may vary as a function of different sociodemographic variables.


Figure 1: SAE levels of vehicle automation.

Several surveys have also investigated the public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for AVs and related technologies, which is a critical aspect of acceptability as the technology will only penetrate the market insomuch as the public is willing to purchase it. Results from the research to date suggest there exists substantial heterogeneity in how much people are currently willing to pay for AV technology. For example, Bansal and Kockelman (2016) surveyed 2167 US respondents and found that, on average, individuals were willing to pay $5, 857 for fully autonomous driving capabilities above the initial price of a vehicle today. When respondents who reported a WTP of $0 were removed from the sample, this mean WTP value increased to $US 14, 196 (Bansal & Kockelman, 2016). Other US-based studies have found WTP for full automation to range between $US 4900–7253 in addition to the initial price of a manual vehicle (Bansal, Kockelman, & Singh, 2016; Daziano, Sarrias, & Leard, 2017), which corresponds to recent estimates among a large sample of Australians (~ $AU 9000; Regan et al., 2017). Furthermore, in their large international study, Kyriakidis et al. (2015) found that there exists a significant upper market for the technology, with around 5% of their respondents being found willing to pay $US 30, 000 or more for the luxury of full automation. However, it must be acknowledged that substantial proportions of people, with estimates ranging from 22% to 78%, are currently not willing to pay anything extra for the technology (Bansal, Kockelman, & Singh, 2016; Daziano, Sarrias, & Leard, 2017; Kyriakidis et al., 2015; Regan et al., 2017).


Public acceptability of AV technology is also likely to differ cross-culturally. Schoettle and Sivak (2014), for example, found that US and UK respondents tended to hold more concerns regarding AVs compared to Australian respondents. However, Australians were less likely to have heard of fully-automated vehicles. More recently, Kyriakidis et al. (2015) showed that indices of AV acceptability are likely to vary considerably across different countries based on a number of factors such as traffic deaths per vehicle, education and GDP per capita, reinforcing the value in ongoing research into the public acceptability of AVs conducted on a country-by-country basis. This study therefore aimed to provide knowledge about Australians’ and New Zealanders’ perceptions of AVs and examine cross country differences in these perceptions. The purpose of this report is to communicate the preliminary findings of the second iteration of a large-scale online survey administered to Australian and, for the first time, New Zealand respondents to gauge public awareness, acceptability of and opinions towards AVs. It should be noted that the definition of acceptability is distinct from acceptance within the literature, where the former refers to attitudes and opinions towards a technology prior to first-hand experience with it, and the latter to attitudes and opinions about a technology after having experienced it. As automated vehicles are not widely available in Australian and New Zealand the findings reported in this document therefore relate primarily to the public acceptability of AVs. This international survey was conducted under the auspices of the Australia and New Zealand Driverless Vehicle initiative (ADVI), a consortium of more than 100 local and international partners from government, industry, and academia that has come together to support its members and stakeholders in accelerating the safe and successful deployment of automated vehicles in Australia and New Zealand.


2. Methodology 2.1 Survey design The ADVI Survey Working group, comprised of representatives from academia, government and industry, originally developed a 78-item survey which sought public feedback on the following key issues: • Level of awareness of highly automated vehicle technology (e.g. whether individuals have

heard about or seen a vehicle which can stay within the lane by itself) • Sources, and degree, of concern regarding issues related to AVs1 (e.g. cyber security) • Degree of comfort with AV functions (e.g. if the car can change lanes by itself, control speed by

itself) • What secondary activities drivers would engage in whilst driving in an AV (e.g. would read,

would interact with other passengers, etc.) • Potential benefits of AVs (e.g. they would be safer than non-automated cars, they would

reduce insurance premiums) • Conditions in which drivers would be most likely to use AVs (e.g. when traffic is congested,

when the driver is tired or fatigued, etc.) • Willingness to pay for automated car and related technology • Agreement with scenarios involving AVs (e.g. “I would feel comfortable taking back control of

an automated car, if requested by the car”) The design and structure of these survey items were informed by (a) that of previous surveys in the international scientific literature aimed as assessing public acceptability of AVs, and (b) by input from members/experts from the aforementioned working group. All items were piloted with a non-technical audience and refined to ensure comprehension. This first iteration of the survey was distributed to 5,263 people across Australia in September 2016. In September 2017, informed by the same processes as above, 15 survey items were added to the original survey by the ADVI working group to also seek public feedback on the following areas: • Perception of safety surrounding driverless vehicles • Opinion regarding driverless public transport and ride sharing • Opinions regarding partially-automated vehicles and connected vehicles • Opinions involving ownership of driverless vehicles This final 93-item survey was distributed to 5,102 Australian and 1,049 New Zealand respondents, roughly representative of their general populations on key demographic variables such as age, gender, location etc., through the online survey platform, Qualtrics. The primary focus of this survey was on fully-automated (completely self-driving) cars, which require no human control.

1 In-text, when discussing the results of the current study, ‘AV’ refers specifically to a fully-automated (i.e. completely self-driving) car unless specified otherwise.


2.2 Demographics and characteristics of sample The demographic and driving characteristics of respondents are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Respondents demographics (N = 6133)

Measure Mean (SD) or % of sample (where appropriate)

Age 45.26 years (17.31)

Gender • Male - 46.6% (n = 2857) • Female - 53.2% (n = 3263) • Prefer not to say - 0.2% (n = 12)

Country of residency • Australia - 83% (n = 5089) • New Zealand - 17% (n = 1044)

State of residency in Australia • Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – 2.1% (n = 109) • New South Wales (NSW) – 30.9% (n = 1574) • Northern Territory (NT) - .6% (n = 32) • Queensland (QLD) – 21.5% (n = 1095) • South Australia (SA) – 7.5% (n = 382)

• Tasmania (TAS) – 2.1% (n = 109) • Victoria (VIC) – 25.8% (n = 1311) • Western Australia (WA) – 9.3% (n = 474)

Area of residency • Inner metropolitan - 28.7% (n = 1758) • Outer metropolitan - 35% (n = 2145) • Regional - 23.8% (n = 1462)

• Country/Rural - 12.5% (n = 768)

Highest level of education completed • Did not finish high school - 6% (n = 370) • High school - 23.7% (n = 1454) • Certificate/trade - 14.9% (n = 913) • Diploma - 19.9% (n = 1222)

• Bachelor’s degree - 25.5% (n = 1546) • Postgraduate degree - 10.2% (n = 628)

Employment sector • Agricultural, forestry and fishing – 1.8% • Mining – .9% • Manufacturing – 3.9%

• Electricity, gas, water and waste services – .8% • Construction – 4.3% • Wholesale trade – 1.6% • Retail trade – 7.6% • Accommodation and food – 3.0% • Transport, postal and warehouse – 2.8%

• Rental, hiring and real estate services – 1.1% • Professional, scientific and technical services – 7.6%


• Administrative and support services – 6.6% • Education, research and training – 6.4% • Health care and social assistance – 6.8% • Arts and recreation services – 2.0% • Not stated – 42.8%

Types of vehicle driven/ridden most • Car – 83.9% • Truck – 1.0% • Motorcycle – 0.9% • Bus – 2.4% • Tram – 0.5%

• Train – 2.5% • Bicycle – 1.5% • None (I don’t drive) – 7.4%

Possession of licence enabling solo driving 90.3% (n = 5227)

Years with licence enabling solo driving 26.91 years (17.54)

Licence restrictions due to a medically-diagnosable disability of impairmenta

• Yes - 5.2% (n = 271) • No - 94.8% (n = 4956)

Hours driving per week • None - 9.8% (n = 598) • 0-3 hours - 38% (n = 2327) • 3-6 hours - 26.5% (n = 1628) • 6-9 hours - 12.9% (n = 792) • 9+ hours - 12.8% (n = 788)

No. at fault vehicle accidents over past five years

1.27 (.74)

Adopter of new technologies • Very early adopter - 14.5% (n = 888) • Early adopter - 37.9% (n = 2324) • Late adopter - 36.5% (n = 2240)

• Very late adopter - 11.1% (n = 681)

Median yearly income/salary ($AUD) $45,000.00

Median yearly income/salary ($NZ) $45,334.50 aAnalysis excluded respondents who had never held a licence enabling solo driving

2.3 Survey Procedure Following is an outline of the survey procedure: • The study procedures were approved by the relevant University of New South Wales human

ethics in research committee. • The survey was uploaded into Qualtrics, and Qualtrics were commissioned to distribute the

survey to at least 5000 volunteer respondents living in Australia and 1000 respondents living in New Zealand.


• Respondents received a web-link to the survey by Qualtrics, read an information sheet describing the research and clicked on a web-link to indicate consent to participate.

• Consenting respondents were instructed to respond to the survey, which took approximately 30 min to complete.

• Respondents were paid a small amount of money by Qualtrics for their participation. The information provided by Qualtrics was in the form of anonymised responses to each of the survey questions. These responses were provided to the research team via the internet. 2.4 Data analysis Statistical analyses were undertaken for each survey item to examine significant differences in responses across key demographic variances such as age, gender, and countries (i.e. Australia and New Zealand). As the survey items were ordinal, non-parametric statistical tests were utilised for the analyses. The data were screened to ensure they met the appropriate assumptions for the statistical tests used. First, descriptive statistics were calculated for all survey items including (a) the proportion of people that chose each response option and (b) the means and standard deviations of responses. Using these means, survey items were ranked from highest to lowest within each survey group. For example, for the concerns survey item group, the items which attracted the highest mean level of concern were ranked as the most concerning and the items with the lowest mean level of concern were ranked as the least concerning. Second, Chi-squared goodness of fit tests were used to determine whether two (or more) proportions were statistically different from one another (e.g., do a higher proportion of men ‘agree’ that an AV would be safer than a non-automated car then women?) These tests were used to see what types of differences in responses to survey items exist between (a) men and women, and (b) Australians and New Zealanders2. To ease the interpretation of the results for the lay audience, response options were dichotomised (i.e., grouped into two). For example, for a survey item for which the possible response options were “Strongly disagree”, “Somewhat disagree”, “Neither agree nor disagree”, “Somewhat agree” and “Strongly agree”, respondents who chose either of the first three options would be grouped as the ‘Disagree/Neutral’ group, while those that chose either of the latter two options were grouped as the ‘Agree’ group. This dichotomisation is depicted using a vertical blue line as shown in the tabulated results contained in Appendix A. Proportions were considered significantly different at p<.001. Third, Spearman’s rank-order correlations were used to determine whether there existed an association between responses on survey items and respondents’ age (e.g., are older respondents more likely to ‘agree’ that an AV would be safer than a non-automated car?) Given the large

2 In text, ‘Australians’ and ‘New Zealanders’ refer specifically to respondents currently living in Australia or New

Zealand, respectively.


sample size, a more conservative ‘critical cut-off’ was needed to determine what effects were statistically significant. Therefore, only correlations of ρ=.07 (p<.001) were considered significant. Fourth, for willingness to pay survey items only, responses from New Zealand respondents were converted to $AUD at the rate $NZ 0.93 to $AUD 1.00. Mann-Whitney U test was used to test group differences in willingness to pay amount ($AUD) between different groups for gender and country of residence (i.e. men vs. women, Australia vs. New Zealand).

3. Results This section will provide a high-level overview of key significant results only, and we refer the reader to the appropriate tables/appendices for more detailed information. This includes the exact phrasing of all questions and response options in the survey. 3.1 Awareness of highly automated vehicle technology Table 1 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Awareness survey items. Table 1 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. In this section of the survey, respondents were asked “what exposure have you had to the following automated vehicle driving functions?” for the following seven items: (a) car can automatically adapt its speed to changing speed limits, (b) car can stay within the lane by itself, (c) car can follow vehicle ahead at safe distance by itself, (d) car can change lanes by itself. (e) car can avoid collisions with other vehicles and road users (e.g. pedestrians) by itself, (f) car can navigate itself to desired destination (find location and follow route) and (g) car can park itself. These questions were preceded by a brief description of automated vehicles, partially-automated vehicles and fully-automated vehicles. Across the whole sample, the majority of respondents reported they had heard of, had driven, or owned a vehicle capable of performing each function. However, the function that respondents were least aware of was the ability of a vehicle to change lanes by itself, which 55.1% of respondents had never heard of. Respondents reported the highest level of awareness of the ability of automated cars to park themselves, with 82.6% of all respondents having at least heard of the function. Firsthand experience with each of the functions was low, however, with only 3.8% of respondents reporting they own a car with the function across all items on average, and a further 7% reporting they had driven in a car with this function (as a driver or passenger) across all items on average. Age. Compared to younger respondents, older respondents tended to be less aware of the automated cars being able to navigate themselves to a desired destination (find location and follow route). Gender. Males generally had higher awareness of highly automated vehicle technologies than females. Specifically, results showed that more males than females had at least heard of the following systems: autonomous (a) lane keeping (15.2% more males than females), (b) following


cars at a safe distance (17.1% more), (c) changing lanes (17.3% more), (d) collision avoidance (15.2% more) and (e) navigation (14% more). Country. Awareness among Australians and New Zealanders were largely similar. However, one significant difference was found: 11.2% more Australian respondents were aware (i.e., had at least heard of) of an automated car being able to park itself than New Zealand respondents. Region of residence. Averaged across all automated vehicle functions, the regions with the overall highest level of awareness of (i.e. had at least heard of) highly automated vehicle technology were the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (78.3% had at least heard of the functions), Tasmania (TAS) (70.8%), and New South Wales (NSW) (68.7%). The regions with the lowest levels of awareness of highly automated vehicle technology overall were the Northern Territory (NT) (62.9%), Queensland (QLD) (64.7%) and Western Australia (WA) (65%). 3.2 Concerns about AVs Table 2 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Concerns survey items. Table 2 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. In this section of the survey, respondents were asked “if you used a car that was fully automated (i.e. completely self-driving), how concerned or unconcerned would you be about the following issues?” for the following seven issues and scenarios involving AVs: (a) vehicle security (e.g. hackers taking control of the car), (b) data privacy (e.g. being able to have your car’s location and destination tracked), (c) the ability of your car to perform safely in all conditions, (d) allowing your child to ride in the car by themselves, (e) being legally and financially responsible if the car is involved in an accident or makes mistakes (e.g. speeding), (f) cars moving by themselves from one location to another while unoccupied (e.g. in order to pick up passengers or deliver goods) and (g) riding in a car with no driver. Across the whole sample, results showed that the majority of respondents expressed a level of concern for each AV-related issue they were asked about. The issues which garnered the highest level of concern were (a) being legally and financially responsible if the car is involved in an accident or makes mistakes (e.g. speeding) and (b) allowing your child to ride in the car by themselves; in which 86.3% and 85.1% of respondents, respectively, reported a level of concern. On the other hand, the issue which respondents were least concerned about was that of data privacy (e.g. being able to have your car’s location and destination tracked), for which 69% of respondents expressed a level of concern. Age. Compared to younger respondents, older respondents were more likely to express concern regarding (a) allowing your child to ride in the car by themselves, (b) being legally and financially responsible if the car is involved in an accident or makes mistakes and (c) cars moving by themselves from one location to another while unoccupied.


Gender. Females were generally more concerned about the issues with a significantly higher proportion of females than males concerned about (a) the ability of your car to perform safely in all conditions (8.9% more), (b) cars moving by themselves from one location to another while unoccupied (10.9% more) and (c) riding in a car with no driver (12.3% more). Country. Respondents from Australia and New Zealand expressed similar levels of concern across almost all items. However, compared to respondents from New Zealand, Australians were (slightly) more concerned about cars moving by themselves from one location to another while unoccupied (7.6% more Australians expressed concern), data privacy (6.5% more Australians expressed concern) and riding in a car with no driver (6% more Australians expressed concern). Region of residence. Averaged across all concern items, respondents from QLD and South Australia (SA) expressed the highest levels of concern regarding AV-related issues overall, with 79% and 78% of respondents, respectively, reporting a level of concern. On the other hand, respondents from the ACT (69.6%) and NT (69.9%) were found to express the lowest levels of concern. 3.3 AV driving functions Table 3 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the AV driving functions survey items. Table 3 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. In this part of the survey, respondents were asked “if I used a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving), I would be comfortable or uncomfortable allowing it to…” for the following seven automated functions: (a) control speed by itself, (b) stay within the lane by itself, (c) follow a vehicle ahead at a much closer distance, (d) change lanes by itself, (e) avoid collisions with other vehicles and road users by itself, (f) navigate itself to a desired location (find and follow route), and (g) comply with all traffic laws by itself (e.g. stopping at red lights). Across the whole sample, results generally showed that a majority of respondents were comfortable with allowing an AV to perform most of the driving tasks specified in the survey. The driving tasks which respondents were most comfortable with an AV undertaking were staying within the lane by themselves (59.2% of respondents were comfortable) and navigating themselves to a desired location (54.5% of respondents were comfortable). Conversely, the driving tasks respondents were least comfortable with an AV undertaking were changing lanes by itself and following the vehicle ahead at a safe distance by itself - with 38.2% and 36.8% of respondents expressing comfort with these items, respectively. Age. Compared to younger respondents, older respondents were less likely to be comfortable with (a) allowing an AV to control speed by itself and (b) follow the vehicle ahead at a safe distance by itself. Gender. Generally, males expressed higher levels of comfort with allowing an AV to undertake various driving tasks. However, results showed that the largest differences in level of comfort


were associated with (a) allowing the AV to change lanes by itself (13.7% more males were comfortable) and (b) allowing the AV to follow the vehicle ahead at a safe distance (10.3% more males were comfortable). Country. No significant differences were observed between respondents from Australia and New Zealand in their level of comfort in allowing an AV to undertake any of the driving tasks. Region of residence. Overall, respondents from the ACT generally expressed the highest level of comfort with allowing an AV to perform various automated functions, while respondents from TAS generally reported the lowest levels of comfort. 3.4 Secondary task engagement Table 4 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Secondary task engagement survey items. Table 4 (Appendix B) contains the results of the analyses by region. In this part of the survey respondents were asked to answer the question “how likely would you be to engage in the following activities when riding in a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving)?” for the following ten possible secondary tasks while driving in an AV” (a) resting, (b) grooming (e.g. applying makeup, (c) doing work, (d) using personal devices (e.g. mobile phone, iPad), (e) reading a book, newspaper, magazine, (f) eating / drinking, (g) interacting with other passengers, (h) observing the scenery, (i) doing nothing at all and (j) sleeping. Across the whole sample, the secondary tasks respondents were most likely to engage in when supported by automation were (a) observe the scenery (71% of respondents) and (b) interact with other passengers (69% of respondents). On the other hand, the secondary tasks that respondents were least likely to engage in when supported by automation were (a) sleep (23.4% of respondents) and (b) grooming (e.g., applying makeup) (28.7%). Age. Overall, younger respondents (compared to older respondents) were found to be more likely to engage in all but one of the secondary tasks they were asked about when supported by automation. Notably, compared to older respondents, younger respondents were more likely to engage in (a) grooming (e.g., applying makeup), (b) eating/drinking, (c) doing work and (d) using personal devices (e.g., mobile phone, iPad). Gender. The results generally showed that males were more likely than females to report that they would engage in secondary tasks whilst driving an AV. A significantly higher proportion of males (13.2% more) compared to females reported they would be likely to rest in an AV. However, more females than males indicated they were likely to groom in an AV (8.9% more). Country. Respondents from Australia and New Zealand were similar in their likely engagement in secondary activities while driving an AV. However, respondents from New Zealand were (slightly) more likely to want to (a) observe the scenery (7.9% more New Zealanders), (b) eat/drink (5.7%


more New Zealanders) and (c) use personal devices (7.8% more New Zealanders) when driving in an AV, compared to Australians. Region of residence. Averaged over all secondary activities, the ACT (54.4%) and NZ (50.5%) had the highest proportions of respondents indicating they would be likely to engage in secondary activities while supported by automation. The regions with the smallest proportion of respondents reporting they would be likely to engage in secondary activities when supported by automation were TAS (36.2%) and SA (42.1%). 3.5 Perceived benefits of AVs Table 5 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Benefits survey items. Table 5 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. Respondents were asked to report their agreement with the following nine statements about the predicted benefits of AVs: (a) they would be safer than non-automated cars, (b) they will allow me to spend time on other activities (e.g. surfing the internet), (c) they would reduce my travel time, (d) they would consume less fuel, (e) they would be environmentally friendlier, (f) they would allow mobility for people with driving impairments or restrictions (e.g. medical conditions, vision impairments), (g) I would not have to worry about looking for a car park, (h) they would reduce overall vehicle repair costs (if there are less crashes) and (i) they would reduce insurance premiums (if there are less crashes). There were only three benefits which garnered agreement from the majority of respondents across the whole sample, which were that AVs would (a) allow mobility for people with driving impairments or restrictions (76.7% of respondents agreed), (b) reduce insurance premiums (55.5% of respondents agreed) and (c) reduce overall repair costs (53.9% of respondents agreed). Conversely, less than a quarter of respondents (23.4% of respondents) agreed that AVs would reduce travel time. Age. Compared to older respondents, younger respondents were more likely to agree that AVs would (a) be safer than non-automated cars, (b) allow more time to be spend on other activities, (c) consume less fuel and (d) reduce travel time. Gender. Males were more likely than females to agree with the potential benefits of AVs. Compared to females a significantly higher proportion of males agreed that AVs would be safer than non-automated cars (11.6% more males). Country. Australians and New Zealanders were largely the same in their agreement with the potential benefits of AVs. However, compared to respondents from Australia, a (slightly) larger proportion of respondents from New Zealand compared to Australia agreed that AVs would (a) allow mobility for people with driving impairments or restrictions (5% more respondents from New Zealand), (b) allow you to spend time on other activities (4.5% more respondents from New


Zealand) and (c) reduce overall repair costs (if there are less crashes) (4.1% more respondents from New Zealand). Region of residence. Averaged across all survey items relating to perceived benefits, the ACT (51.4%) and NZ (49.9%) had the highest proportion of respondents that agreed with the predicted benefits of AVs. On the other hand, TAS (36.5%) and SA (44%) had the smallest proportions of respondents that agreed with the predicted benefits of AVs. 3.6 Conditions under which to use AVs Table 6 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Conditions survey items. Table 6 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. Respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with the statement “I would want to use a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving)” under the following seven different conditions: (a) when traffic is congested, (b) when I am tired or fatigued, (c) when driving is boring and monotonous, (d) to pick up my kids from school or bring them to soccer training (on their own), (e) after consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication (at a legally acceptable level), (f) in situations in which I feel uncomfortable driving (e.g. in bad weather, at night) and (g) to transport me at times when I am physically and/or mentally unable to drive manually (e.g. after a stroke, due to age-related impairments). Results showed that, across the whole sample, the majority of respondents agreed they would like to use an AV under all but one of the conditions asked about. The conditions of use which were perceived to be of particular benefit to respondents were to use an AV (a) when tired or fatigued (68.9% respondents agreed with wanting to use an AV in this condition) and (b) when physically and/or mentally unable to drive manually (63.6% respondents agree with wanting to use an AV in this condition). On the other hand, only about a quarter of respondents (24.8%) agreed that they would like to use an AV to transport their children unchaperoned (e.g., to take to sports training). Age. Results showed that, compared to older respondents, younger respondents were more likely to want to use an AV (a) when traffic is congested, (b) when tired or fatigued, (c) to transport their children unchaperoned and (d) after consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication. Gender. Males and females were largely the same in the conditions they would want to use an AV in. However, slightly more males than females reported that they would like to use an AV (a) to pick up their kids from school or bring them to soccer practice (9.4% more males), (b) when traffic is congested (6.4% more males) and (c) after consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication (6.2% more males). Country. There were only small differences between respondents from New Zealand and Australia in the conditions they would want to use an AV. Specifically, compared to respondents from Australia, a larger proportion of respondents from New Zealand reported that they would like to use an AV (a) to transport them at times when they are physically and/or mentally unable to drive


manually (10.3% more New Zealanders), (b) after consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication (9.1% more new Zealanders) and (c) when they are tired or fatigued (6.2% more New Zealanders). Region of residence. Averaged across all conditions, respondents from NZ (58.6%) and the ACT (57.8%) were the most open to using an AV under the various conditions they were asked about. On the other hand, respondents from TAS (47.1%) and SA (50.7%) appeared to be the most apprehensive to use an AV under these conditions. 3.7 Willingness to pay Table 7 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Willingness to pay survey items. Table 7 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. First, respondents were asked “would you be willing to pay more, less or the same for…”: (a) a partially-automated car (i.e. in which only some driving functions can be controlled by the car; e.g. a car that helps driver stay in lane and maintain speed) compared to the same car without automation?, (b) a fully-automated car (i.e. in which all driving functions can be controlled by the car) compared to the same car without automation?, (c) road infrastructure (e.g. lane markings) that would help an automated car function more effectively? (e.g. through taxes), and (d) special training and licensing procedures to be put in place to use automated cars? Second, respondents were asked an open response question: “If you are willing to pay more (or a lot more) for a fully-automated car, how much would you be willing to pay than for your current vehicle? (If living in Australia, please express this figure in Australian Dollars. If living in New Zealand, please express this figure in New Zealand Dollars) (If you are not willing to pay more, please enter ‘0’ in the box provided)”. Results showed that, across the whole sample, more than two in five respondents were willing to pay more for a fully-automated car (43.1%), compared to a third of respondents for a partially-automated car (34.1%). Approximately a third of respondents were willing to pay more for road infrastructure (31.1%), and training and licensing procedures (34.4%), to support the operation of automated cars. The mean amount respondents were willing to pay more for a fully-automated car compared to their current car was $AUD 13,784. However, the median amount respondents were willing to pay more was $AUD 5,000. The discrepancy between these mean and median WTP figures, and the fact that the mean value is significantly larger than the median value, suggests that there is a group of respondents who are willing to pay very large amounts for the luxury of full vehicle automation. For example, 5% of the total sample were willing to pay $AUD 50,000 or more, on top of their current vehicle, for automated driving capabilities. Age. Compared to older respondents, younger respondents were found to be more willing to pay more for (a) a partially-automated car, (b) a fully-automated car, (c) road infrastructure to support the operation of automated cars and (d) licensing and training protocols to support the operation


of automated cars. In addition, compared to older respondents, younger respondents were more likely to report a higher WTP figure ($AUD) for a fully-automated car compared to their current vehicle. Country. Results showed that Australian respondents were willing to pay a greater median amount extra ($AUD 5,000 extra) for a fully-automated car than their current car compared to New Zealand respondents ($AUD 4650 extra). Gender. Results showed that females were willing to pay a greater median amount extra ($AUD 5000 extra) for a fully-automated car than their current car compared to males ($AUD 4650 extra). Region of residence. Respondents from the ACT were the most willing to pay more for (a) a partially-automated car (56.9% would pay more) (see Figure 2. for full rankings by state), (b) a fully-automated car (57.8% would pay more), (c) road infrastructure to support the operation of AVs (45.9% would pay more) and (d) licensing and training protocols to support the operation of AVs (44% would pay more). On the other hand, respondents from TAS were the least likely to want to pay more for (a) a partially-automated car (only 22.9% would pay more), (b) a fully-automated car (only 33% would pay more), (c) road infrastructure to support the operation of AVs (only 22.9% would pay more) and (d) licensing and training protocols to support the operation of AVs (only 25.7% would pay more).

Figure 2. Willingness to pay more for a fully-automated car, by region

On average, respondents from the ACT were willing to pay the highest amount extra for a fully-automated car, while respondents from SA reported the lowest amount. As depicted in Figure 3. below, the mean willingness to pay values are significantly larger than the medians willingness to pay values. This indicates that in all regions, particularly the ACT, there is a sub-group of respondents willing to pay significantly higher amounts for vehicle automation (therefore skewing the mean value somewhat above the median value).


Figure 3. Amount willing to pay for fully-automated cars

3.8 Scenarios involving automated cars Table 8 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Scenario survey items. Table 8 (Appendix B) contains the results the analyses by region. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with the following five statements describing scenarios involving automated cars: (a) I would feel comfortable taking back control of an automated car, if requested by the car, (b) I would feel comfortable giving control to an automated car in appropriate circumstances, (c) I would drive an automated car manually from time to time (if it allowed me to do so), (d) I would feel comfortable sharing a driverless car (e.g. carpool) with other people to take me to my chosen destination and (e) I would feel comfortable travelling on public transport in which the vehicle (e.g. bus, taxi) is driverless. Results showed that, across the whole sample, respondents were far more comfortable taking back manual control of an automated car (if requested by the system) (80.1% expressed being comfortable with this scenario) than giving control to the automated system (58.7% expressed being comfortable with this scenario). Over three quarters of respondents (77%) agreed that they would like to drive an automated car manually from time to time and results showed that less than half of respondents agreed that they would be comfortable (a) sharing a driverless car with other people to take them to their chosen destination (44.4%) or (b) travelling on public transport in which the vehicle is driverless (39.2%). Age. Compared to older respondents, younger respondents were more likely to report being comfortable (a) giving control to an automated car in appropriate circumstances, (b) sharing a driverless car with others and (c) travelling on public transport in which the vehicle (e.g. bus, taxi) is driverless. On the other hand, however, older respondents were more likely to be comfortable with taking back vehicle control from an automated car than younger respondents if requested.

47999

18419

6100

12863

766811837 11699 11894

8636

20005000

20005000 5000

30005000 5000 4650

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA NZ

Will

ingn

ess t

o Pa

y ($

) AU

D

RegionMean


Gender. A significantly higher proportion of males (15.1% more) than females would feel comfortable travelling on driverless public transport. Country. No significant differences were found between Australian and New Zealand respondents in this section of the survey. Region of residence. Respondents from QLD (83.7%) and SA (81.8%) were the most likely to be comfortable taking back manual control of an automated car while respondents from the NT (73.3%) and TAS (73.8%) were the least comfortable. In addition, respondents from the ACT (63.2%) and New Zealand (62.2%) were the most likely to agree that they would feel comfortable giving control to an automated car, while those from SA (55.3%) and TAS (49%) were the least likely to agree. Respondents from New Zealand (80.2%) were the most likely to want to drive an automated car manually from time to time, whereas those from the ACT (67.6%) were the least likely to agree. Respondents from the ACT had the highest proportion of respondents indicating they would be comfortable sharing a driverless car (54.7%) and travelling on public transport in which the vehicle was driverless (49.5%). However, however respondents from TAS were the least likely to be comfortable in the two aforementioned scenarios (with only 38.5% and 28.7% respondents reporting some level of comfort, respectively). 3.9 Safety and automated vehicles Table 9 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Safety survey items. Table 9 (Appendix B) contains the results the analyses by region. Respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with the statement “I believe that a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving) will be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver” to which 43.4% of all respondents agreed, and were further asked “if driving a conventional vehicle, how safe or unsafe would you feel when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic?” for which 33.8% of all respondents indicated they would feel safe. Age. Compared to older respondents, younger respondents were more likely to agree (a) an AV would be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver and indicate (b) they would feel safe driving a conventional vehicle when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic. Gender. Compared to females, a higher proportion of males agreed (a) an AV would be safer than a car driven by an experienced driver (14.4% more males than females agreed) and indicated (b) they would feel safe driving a conventional vehicle when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic (16.5% more males than females agreed).


Country. No differences were observed between Australian and New Zealand respondents in their agreement that (a) an AV would be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver or that they would feel safe when (b) driving a conventional vehicle when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic. Region of residence. The ACT had the largest proportion of respondents that held the opinion that (a) an AV would be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver (52.3% of respondents endorsed this opinion) and that (b) they would feel safe driving a conventional vehicle when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic (47.7% of respondents endorsed this opinion). The regions which had the lowest proportions of respondents who held these two opinions were TAS (only 33.8% of respondents endorsed the opinion that AVs would be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver) and SA (only 29.8% indicated they were would feel safe if driving a conventional vehicle when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic), respectively. 3.10 Use cases for driverless public transport Table 10 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Use case survey items. Table 10 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. Respondents were asked to state their level agreement or disagreement with the following three statements describing scenarios involving driverless public transport and ride sharing: (a) I would consider travelling in a driverless mini-shuttle (e.g. mini-bus) connecting a public transport stop with my home or workplace, (b) I would prefer to use driverless public transport/ride sharing (i.e. riding in a car with other people) if it was cheaper than conventional human-driven public transport/ride sharing and (c) I would prefer to use driverless public transport over public transport if the driverless service was available on demand (i.e. available when you want). Across the whole sample, the results showed that the majority of respondents would not consider travelling in a driverless-mini-shuttle connecting a transport stop with their home or workplace (59.5% did not agree), nor prefer to use driverless public transport if it was cheaper (63% did not agree) or if it was available on demand (61.1% did not agree). Age. No relationship was found between age and opinions regarding driverless public transport in this part of the survey. Gender. Results showed that, compared to females, a greater proportion of males agreed that they would consider travelling in a driverless mini-shuttle connecting a public transport stop with their home or workplace (9.8% more). Country. There were no differences between Australian and New Zealand respondents in their agreement with the items in this part of the survey. Region of residence. Results showed that respondents from NZ, NSW and the ACT were the most likely to consider travelling in a driverless mini-shuttle connecting a transport stop with their home


or workplace and were the most likely to prefer to use driverless public transport or ride sharing if it was cheaper or was available on demand over conventional human-driven public transport or ride sharing, while respondents from TAS and SA were the least likely to prefer using these over conventional vehicles. 3.11 Ownership of automated vehicles Table 11 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Ownership of automated vehicles survey items. Table 11 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. Respondents were asked two questions about scenarios involving the ownership of AVs: (a) their level of agreement with the statement “I would be prepared to use driverless public transport/ride sharing, rather than a driverless private vehicle, if it helped reduce congestion”, and (b) “if you owned a driverless car instead of a conventional (i.e. manually driven) car, would you expect to travel more or less than you do now?” Across the whole sample, under half of all respondents (45.3%) agreed that they would be prepared to use driverless public transport or ride sharing rather than a private driverless vehicle if it reduced congestion. In addition to this, less than a quarter of respondents (22.3%) indicated that they would expect to travel more if they owned a driverless car. Age. Compared to younger respondents, older respondents were less likely to say they would expect to travel more often than they do now if they owned a driverless car. Gender. Males were slightly more likely than females to be prepared to use driverless public transport or ride sharing rather than a driverless private vehicle if it helped reduce congestion (7.1% more males). Males were also slightly more likely than females to report they would expect to travel more if they owned a driverless car (3.6% more males). Country. Respondents from New Zealand were slightly more likely, compared with respondents from Australia, to agree that they would be prepared to use driverless public transport or ride sharing if it helped reduce congestion (7.1% more respondents from New Zealand). Region of residence. The results show that respondents from the ACT were the most likely to agree that they would be prepared to use driverless public transport or ride sharing, rather than a driverless private vehicle, if it helped reduce congestion (54.1% agreed), while respondents from TAS were the least likely to agree (38.5% agreed). Likewise, respondents from the ACT were the most likely to say they would travel more often if they owned a driverless car (37.6% agreed), whilst respondents from TAS were the least likely to agree (12.8% agreed). 3.12 Partially-automated vehicles Table 12 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Partially-automated vehicle survey items. Table 12 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region.


Respondents were asked a the following questions about their interest in purchasing, paying for, and using partially-automated vehicles: (a) If you were to purchase a new vehicle, would you be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was partially-automated (i.e. a vehicle in which some driving functions can be controlled by the vehicle such as steering and the ability to follow other vehicles)?, (b) Would you be prepared to pay more for a vehicle with these features (as described in the question above)?, (c) If you were driving a vehicle with these features (as described in the question above), would you use them? and (d) Would you be more or less likely to use a public transport/ride share vehicle if it had these features (as described in the question above)?” Over half (57.8%) of respondents across the whole sample, indicated they would be interested in purchasing a partially-automated vehicle, while just over two thirds of respondents (37.9%) reported that they would be prepared to pay more for a vehicle with these features. Most respondents (58.9%) indicated that they would use the features of a partially-automated vehicle if they were driving one. However, only a quarter of respondents (25.1%) reported that they would be more likely to use public transport which was partially-automated. Age. The results show that older respondents were less likely than younger respondents to report that they were interested in purchasing a partially-automated vehicle and were less likely to report that they would be prepared to pay more for a vehicle with these features. Furthermore, compared to younger respondents, older respondents were less likely to say they would be more likely to use public transport or ride share vehicles if they had the features of a partially-automated vehicle. Gender. A higher proportion of males than females thought that they would be likely to use the features of a partially-automated vehicle if they were driving one (12.9% more) and that they would be more likely to use public transport or ride sharing if they had the features of a partially-automated vehicle (12% more males). Country. There were no significant differences between Australians and New Zealanders in their responses to these items. Region of residence. Respondents from the ACT were most likely to (a) express interest in purchasing a partially-automated vehicle (66.1% reported interest), (b) report that they would be prepared to pay more for a partially-automated vehicle (61.5% would pay more), (c) say they would use the features of a partially-automated vehicle if they were driving one (66.1% would use the features) and (d) say they would be more likely to use public transport with the features of a partially-automated vehicle (42.2% would be more likely). On the other hand, respondents from TAS were the least likely to (a) express interest in purchasing a partially-automated vehicle (40.4% reported interest), (b) say they would use the features of a partially-automated vehicle if they were driving one (43.1% would use the features) and (c) say they would be more likely to use public transport with the features of a partially-automated vehicle (18.3% would be more likely). Respondents from NT were the least likely to report they


would be prepared to pay more for a partially-automated vehicle (25% would pay more), with respondents from TAS the second least likely to report this (26.6% would pay more). 3.13 Connected vehicles Table 13 (Appendix A) contains all descriptive statistics and results from the analyses of age, gender and country for the Connected vehicle survey items. Table 13 (Appendix B) contains the results from the analyses by region. Respondents were asked the following series of questions about their interest in purchasing, paying for, and using connected vehicles: (a) if you were to purchase a new vehicle, would you be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was wirelessly connected to other vehicles and road infrastructure around you (e.g. so as to warn you if you were going to collide with other vehicles or roadway hazards)?, (b) Would you be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle (as described in the question above)?, (c) If you were driving a connected vehicle with these safety features (as described in the question above), would you activate (and use) these features?, (d) Would you be more or less likely to use a public transport/ride share vehicle if it was connected and had these features (as described in the question above)? and (e) How concerned or unconcerned would you be about having your vehicle wirelessly connected to, and communicating automatically with, other vehicles and road infrastructure? Across the whole sample, most respondents indicated that they would be interested in purchasing a connected vehicle (61.4%), while over a third reported that they would be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle (37.8%). Most respondents indicated that they would be likely to use the features of a connected vehicle if they had them (57.2%). On the other hand, less than half of respondents (35.1%) indicated they would be more likely to use public transport or ride sharing if it had the features of a connected vehicle, and the majority of respondents (58.1%) also expressed concern about having their vehicle wirelessly connected to and communicating automatically with other vehicles and infrastructure. Age. The results show that older respondents were less likely than younger respondents to report that they were interested in purchasing a vehicle which was wirelessly connected to other vehicles and road infrastructure or be prepared to pay more for a vehicle with these features. Furthermore, compared to younger respondents, older respondents were less likely to say they would be more likely to use public transport or ride share vehicles if they had the features of a connected vehicle and were also more likely to be more concerned about having their vehicle wirelessly connected to, and communicating, with other vehicles and road infrastructure compared with younger respondents. Gender. More males than females reported that they would be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was wirelessly connected to other vehicles and road infrastructure (9.9% more) and that they would be more likely to use public transport or ride sharing if they had the features of a connected vehicle (10.2% more males).


Country. Results show that Australians were slightly more likely, compared with respondents from New Zealand, to be concerned about having their vehicle connected to and communicating automatically with other vehicles and road infrastructure (5.7% more Australians). Region of residence. Respondents from the ACT were most likely to (a) express interest in purchasing a connected vehicle (67% reported interest), (b) say they would be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle (60.6% would pay more), (c) say they would use the features of a connected vehicle if they were driving one (67% would use the features) and (d) say they would be more likely to use public transport with the features of a connected vehicle (49.5% would be more likely). On the other hand, respondents from TAS were the least likely to (a) express interest in purchasing a connected vehicle (48.6% reported interest), (b) report they would be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle (28.4% would pay more) and (c) say they would use the features of a connected vehicle if they were driving one (41.3% would use the features). In addition to this, respondents from NT were the least likely to report they would use public transport with the features of a connected vehicle (28.2% would use the features), with respondents from TAS the second least likely (28.4% would pay more), and respondents from NSW the most likely to express concern about having their vehicle wirelessly connected to, and communicating automatically with, other vehicles and road infrastructure (63%); while respondents from NT were the least likely to express this (40.6%).

4. Conclusion This report details preliminary findings from the second iteration of the ADVI Public Opinion of Automated Vehicles Survey. This large online survey gauged public awareness, attitudes and opinions of AVs in Australia and New Zealand and was distributed to 5,102 Australian and 1,049 New Zealand respondents using an online platform, Qualtrics. The survey gauged facets of AV acceptability including, (a) awareness of highly automated vehicle technologies, (b) concerns about AV related issues, (c) level of comfort with AV functions, (d) secondary task engagement when driving in AVs, (e) perceived benefits of AVs, (f) conditions under which to use AVs and (g) willingness to pay for AVs. Additional questions asked respondents about (h) scenarios involving automated cars, (i) safety and automated vehicles, (j) use cases for driverless public transport, (k) ownership of automated vehicles, (l) partially automated vehicles and (m) connected vehicles. and related technology. Responses on survey items relating to these topics were statistically analysed to draw out differences pertaining to respondents’ (a) age, (b) gender, (c) country and (d) region of residence. The following provides a high-level description of the key significant findings from the survey. Awareness. Only a small percentage of Australians and New Zealanders have had first-hand experience with highly automated vehicle functions, however most respondents had, at least, heard about them. Respondents were most aware of the ability of an automated vehicle to park itself and were least aware of the ability of an automated vehicle to change lanes by itself.


Concerns. Over two thirds of respondents expressed a level of concern for all AV related issues gauged by the survey. In particular, people were most concerned about (a) allowing a child to ride in the car by themselves and (b) being legally and financially responsible if the car is involved in an accident. On the other hand, people were least concerned about (a) data privacy and (b) riding in a car with no driver; however, we must acknowledge that a majority of respondents still expressed concerns about these issues. AV driving functions. A majority of respondents reported being comfortable with an AV undertaking most driving functions. Specifically, respondents were most comfortable with an AV (a) staying within the lane by itself and (b) navigating itself to a desired location. Conversely, respondents were least comfortable with an AV (a) changing lanes by itself and (b) following a vehicle ahead at a safe distance by itself. Secondary task engagement. The secondary activities respondents reported that they would most likely undertake when supported by automation were (a) observing the scenery and (b) interacting with passengers. On the other hand, the secondary task respondents were least likely to engage in when supported by automation was sleeping. Perceived benefits. Respondents’ levels of agreement varied considerably across the predicted AV benefits. Over three quarters of respondents agreed that AVs would (a) allow mobility for people with driving impairments or restrictions and (b) would reduce insurance premiums. Conversely, approximately a quarter of respondents agreed that AVs would reduce travel time. Conditions. The majority of respondents reported that they would like to use an AV under most conditions specified in the survey. The conditions under which respondents would most like to use AVs are (a) when they are tired or fatigued and (b) to transport them when they are physically and/or mentally unable to drive manually. Respondents were least likely to report that they would want to use an AV (a) to pick up their kids from school or take them to soccer practice and (b) after consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication. Willingness to pay. More respondents were willing to pay for a fully-automated car (43.1% would pay more) compared to a partially-automated car (34.1% would pay more). The average amount respondents were willing to pay for a fully-automated car on top of their current car was $AUD 13,784; the median amount respondents were willing to pay more was $AUD 5,000. Scenarios involving AVs. More respondents reported feeling comfortable with taking back control from an automated car, compared to giving control to an automated car. The vast majority of respondents agreed that they would like to drive an automated car manually from time to time. Safety. Less than half of all respondents agreed that an AV would be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver and only one third of respondents reported they would feel safe interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic if they were driving a conventional car.


Use cases. Under half of respondents reported that they would (a) consider using driverless mini-shuttles connecting a public transport stop to their home or workplace, (b) would prefer to use driverless public transport if it was cheaper, or (c) available on demand, over conventional public transport. Ownership of AVs. Less than half of all respondents were prepared to use driverless public transport or ride sharing rather than a driverless private vehicle if it reduced congestion, and approximately one fifth of respondents thought they would travel more often if they owned a driverless car instead of a conventional car. Partially-automated vehicles. Most respondents were interested in purchasing a partially-automated vehicle and would use the features of a partially-automated vehicle if they were driving one. However, less than half of respondents would be prepared to pay more for a partially-automated vehicle, and only a quarter reported that they would be more likely to use public transport or ride sharing with the features of a partially-automated vehicle. Connected vehicles. Most respondents were interested in purchasing a connected vehicle and would use the features of a connected vehicle if they were driving one. Despite this, the majority of respondents were concerned about having their vehicle wirelessly connected to and communicating automatically with other vehicles and road infrastructure. Furthermore, less than half of respondents would be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle or would be more likely to use public transport or ride sharing with the features of one. Age. Overall, our results suggest that older respondents tend to be currently less accepting of AVs than younger respondents. For example, older respondents perceive there to be less benefits associated with the introduction of AVs, have more concerns about AV related issues, tend to be less comfortable with the AV undertaking numerous driving tasks, are less likely to want to use an AV in different conditions, and express a lower willingness to pay for AV-related technology. Gender. Overall, our results suggest that male respondents are generally more accepting of AVs than females. In support of this, males were found to perceive more benefits and reported less concerns with AV related issues, tended to be more comfortable with AVs undertaking various driving tasks, and expressed a higher likelihood that they would undertake a number of different secondary tasks while driving an AV. Surprisingly, despite this seemingly higher level of acceptability, males were not willing to pay as much as females for an AV. Country. Overall, Australians and New Zealanders currently appear to be largely similar in their levels of acceptability of AVs. However, some results suggest that Australians may be slightly less open to AV technology than New Zealanders. For example, Australians were found to have a slight tendency to be more concerned about a handful of AV-related issues and perceive less benefits with the operation of AVs. On the other hand, interestingly, Australians were willing to pay 10% more for AV technology compared to New Zealanders.


Region of residence. Overall, our results suggest that attitudes and opinions towards AVs currently varies considerably across different Australian regions and New Zealand. Upon closer inspection of these data, it appears that respondents from the ACT are currently the most receptive to AVs compared to the other Australian regions as well as New Zealand. In support of this, respondents from the ACT tended to have the least concerns with AV-related issues, are generally more comfortable with letting AVs undertake different driving tasks, express a higher likelihood of engaging in secondary activities when supported by automation, perceive more benefits associated with the introduction of AVs and would tend to seek the use of AVs under more conditions. On the other hand, our data suggest that respondents from SA and TAS are currently the least accepting of AVs compared to other regions in Australia and New Zealand. This is indicated by our results suggesting that respondents from these regions tended to be most concerned with the AV- related issues raised (SA only), are generally less comfortable letting AVs undertake different driving tasks, express a lower likelihood of engaging in secondary activities when supported by automation, perceive less benefits associated with the introduction of AVs and tend to seek the use of AVs under fewer conditions.


5. References Anderson, J. M., Nidhi, K., Stanley, K. D., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., & Oluwatola, O. A. (2014).

Autonomous vehicle technology: A guide for policymakers. Rand Corporation. Bansal, P., & Kockelman, K. M. (2016). Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving

vehicles? A case study of Texans. Transportation, 1-35. Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016b). Assessing public opinions of and interest in new

vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, 1-14.

Daziano, R. A., Sarrias, M., & Leard, B. (2017). Are consumers willing to pay to let cars drive for them? Analyzing response to autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 78, 150-164.

Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167-181.

Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 32, 127-140.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles. Washington, DC.

Payre, W., Cestac, J., & Delhomme, P. (2014). Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 27, 252-263.

Regan, M. A., Horberry, T., & Stevens, A. (2014). Driver acceptance of new technology: theory, measurement and optimisation. Surrey, England: Ashgate.

Regan, M.A., Cunningham, M., Dixit, V., Horberry, T., Bender, A., Weeratunga, K., Cratchley, S., Dalwood, L., Muzorewa, D., & Hassan, A. (2017). Preliminary findings from the first Australian national survey of public opinion about automated and driverless vehicles. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Driverless Vehicle Initiative. ISBN 987-1-876592-85-1. Retrieved from: https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/cdn-advi/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ADVI-Public-Opinion-Survey-7June2016.pdf

SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee. (2014). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. SAE International.

Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M. (2014). A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia.


Appendix A The following tables within this appendix summarise (a) the proportion of respondents who chose each response option for each survey item, as well as (b) the results of the statistical analyses undertaken. Within each table, the blue vertical line divide indicates how the response options for each survey item were dichotomosed (i.e., used to form two groups) for the purposes of analyses for country (i.e., Australia vs. New Zealand) and gender (i.e., males vs. females). Results of analyses which did not meet the critical cut off for statistical significance are indicated with “ns” for “non-significant” (i.e., there were no significant differences between the groups being compared, or no significant associations). A summary of the tests used, and their critical cut-offs for statistical significance, are as follows: • To test for differences in responses between respondents from Australia and New Zealand:

o Chi-square goodness of fit test with dichotomised response options o Result considered statistically significant at p<.001.

• To test for differences in responses between male and female respondents in the sample: o Chi-square goodness of fit test with dichotomised response options o Result considered statistically significant at p<.001.

• To test whether for associations between responses and the age of respondents: o Spearman’s rank-order correlations with un-dichotomised variables: o Result considered statistically significant at ρ=.07, p<.001.


Table 1. Awareness of highly automated vehicle technology Awareness of highly automated vehicle technology: What exposure have you had to the following automated vehicle driving functions?

Mean (SD) ranked highest to lowest

Response options Analyses I have never heard about this function (%)

I have heard about or seen a car(s) with this function (%)

I have driven in a car with this function (as driver or passenger) (%)

I own a car with this function (%)

Country differences (Australia vs New Zealand

Gender differences Age differences

Car can park itself 2.01 (0.67)

17.5 68.4 9.7 4.5 11.2% more Aus (84.4%) are at least aware of this compared with NZ (73.2%)

5.9% more males (85.6%) are at least aware of this compared with females (79.7%)

ns

Car can follow vehicle ahead at safe distance by itself

1.87 (0.72)

29.1 58.6 8.3 4.0 ns 17.1% more males (80%) are at least aware of this compared with females (62.9%)

ns

Car can avoid collisions with other vehicles and road users (e.g. pedestrians) by itself

1.85 (0.68)

28.5 61.0 7.2 3.2 5.9% more Aus (72.5%) are at least aware of this compared with NZ (66.6%)

15.2% more males (79.6%) are at least aware of this compared with females (64.4%)

ns

Car can stay within the lane by itself

1.83 (0.69)

30.3 59.3 6.9 3.4 ns 15.2% more males (77.7%) are at least aware of this compared with females (62.5%)

ns

Car can automatically adapt its speed to changing speed limits

1.83 (0.79)


ns

Car can navigate itself to desired destination (find location and follow route)

1.76 (0.68)

35.3 56.5 5.5 2.7 ns 14% more males (72.2%) are at least aware of this compared with females (58.2%)

Older respondents were less likely to be aware/have experience compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.082)

Car can change lanes by itself

1.55 (0.71)


ns


Table 2. Concerns about AVs Perceived concerns associated with AVs: If you used a car that was fully automated (i.e., completely self-driving), how concerned or unconcerned would you be about the following issues?


Response options Analyses Unconcerned (%)

Neutral (%)

Concerned (%)

Very concerned (%)



Allowing your child to ride in the car by themselves

3.43 (0.85)

4.4 10.6 23.2 61.9 ns 6.1% more females (87.9%) were concerned compared with males (81.8%)

Older respondents were more likely to be concerned compared with younger respondents (ρ=.097)

Being legally and financially responsible if the car is involved in an accident or makes mistakes (e.g. speeding)

3.34 (0.78)



The ability of your car to perform safely in all conditions

3.09 (0.91)


ns

Cars moving by themselves from one location to another while unoccupied (e.g. in order to pick up passengers or deliver goods)

3.02 (0.97)

9.0 18.8 33.4 38.8 7.6% more Aus (73.5%) are concerned compared with NZ (65.9%)

10.9% more females (77.4%) were concerned compared with males (66.5%)


Vehicle security (e.g. hackers taking control of the car)

3.02 (0.92)

8.3 16.7 40.2 34.9 ns ns ns

Riding in a car with no driver 2.96 (0.99)

10.3 20.5 32.1 37.1 6% more Aus (70.2%) are concerned compared with NZ (64.2%)

12.3% more females (75%) were concerned compared with males (62.7%)

ns

Data privacy (e.g. being able to have your car’s location and destination tracked)

2.89 (0.98)

11.7 19.3 37.1 31.9 6.5% more Aus (70.1%) are concerned compared with NZ (63.6%)

5% more females (71.3%) were concerned compared with males (66.3%)

ns


Table 3. AV driving functions Driving functions/tasks undertaken by AV: If I used a fully-automated car (i.e., completely self-driving), I would be comfortable and/or uncomfortable allowing it to...


Response options Analyses Very uncomfortable (%)

Somewhat uncomfortable (%)

Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable (%)

Somewhat comfortable (%)

Very comfortable (%)



Stay within the lane by itself

3.41 (1.25)

10.5 15.4 14.9 40.5 18.7 ns 7.1% more males (62.9%) were comfortable compared with females (55.8%)

ns

Navigate itself to a desired location (find and follow route)

3.35 (1.26)

11.5 14.8 19.2 35.9 18.6 ns 7% more males (58.2%) were comfortable compared with females (51.2%)

ns

Comply with all traffic laws by itself (e.g. stopping at red lights)

3.32 (1.30)

12.9 15.1 19.0 33.3 19.7 ns 8.6% more males (57.6%) were comfortable compared with females (49%)

ns

Control speed by itself

3.30 (1.29)

12.0 18.7 14.3 37.5 17.5 ns 9% more males (59.7%) were comfortable compared with females (50.7%)

Older respondents were less likely to be comfortable compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.132)

Avoid collisions with other vehicles and road users by itself

3.25 (1.29)


ns

Change lanes by itself 2.88 (1.29)


ns


Follow the vehicle ahead at a safe distance by itself

2.84 (1.36)


Older respondents were less likely to be comfortable compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.114)


Table 4. Secondary task engagement Secondary task engagement when travelling in AV: How likely would you be to engage in the following activities when driving in a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving):


Response options Analyses Extremely unlikely (%)

Somewhat unlikely (%)

Neither likely nor unlikely (%)

Somewhat likely (%)

Extremely likely (%)



Observing the scenery

3.76 (1.16)

8.0 6.8 14.2 43.4 27.7 7.9% more NZ (77.6%) reported likelihood to engage in this activity compared with Aus (69.7%)

ns Older respondents were less likely to say they would engage in this activity compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.080)

Interacting with other passengers

3.70 (1.14)

8.0 6.8 16.2 45.2 23.8 ns ns Older respondents were less likely to say they would engage in this activity compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.144)

Eating / drinking 3.44 (1.22)


ns Older respondents were less likely to say they would engage in this activity compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.280)

Doing nothing at all 3.35 (1.23)

12.6 9.3 25.9 34.7 17.6 ns ns ns

Using personal devices (e.g. mobile phone, iPad)

3.27 (1.36)


7% more males (58.3%) think this is likely compared with females (51.3%)

Older respondents were less likely to say they would engage in this activity compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.241)

Resting 3.03 (1.39)

20.4 18.3 15.5 29.8 16.0 ns 13.2% more males (52.7%) think this is likely compared with females (39.5%)



Reading a book, newspaper, magazine

2.82 (1.36)

24.2 19.0 19.1 26.4 11.3 ns 8.7% more males (42.2%) reported likelihood to engage in this activity compared with females (33.5%)


Doing work 2.68 (1.32)



Grooming (e.g. applying makeup)

2.53 (1.33)

31.8 20.0 19.5 20.8 7.9 ns 8.9% more females (32.8%) reported likelihood to engage in this activity compared with males (23.9%)


Sleeping 2.24 (1.37)




Table 5. Perceived benefits of AVs Perceived benefits associated with AVs: State your agreement or disagreement with the following statements regarding fully-automated cars (i.e., completely self-driving)


Response options Analyses Strongly disagree (%)

Somewhat disagree (%)

Neither agree nor disagree (%)

Somewhat agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)



They would allow mobility for people with driving impairments or restrictions (e.g. medical conditions, vision impairments)

3.97 (1.02)

4.3 4.3 14.7 43.5 33.2 5% more NZ (80.9%) agree compared with Aus (75.9%)

ns ns

They would reduce insurance premiums (if there are less crashes)

3.46 (1.15)

8.6 9.9 26.1 37.8 17.7 ns ns ns

They would reduce overall repair costs (if there are less crashes)

3.43 (1.12)

8.2 10.2 27.7 37.9 16.0 4.1% more NZ (57.3%) agree compared with Aus (53.2%)

ns ns

I would not have to worry about looking for a car park

3.32 (1.18)

10.1 12.6 28.4 32.7 16.2 ns ns ns

They would be environmentally friendlier

3.20 (1.10)

9.3 13.4 37.4 28.3 11.7 ns 7.6% more males (43.8%) agree compared with females (36.2%)

ns

They would be safer than non-automated cars

3.19 (1.15)

10 16.5 31.3 29.4 12.7 ns 11.6% more males (48.2%) agree compared with females (36.6%)

Older respondents were less likely to agree compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.079)

They will allow me to spend time on other activities (e.g. surfing the internet)

3.18 (1.26)


4.9% more males (49.9%) agree compared with females (45%)


They would consume less fuel

3.15 (1.10)

9.6 15.2 36.3 28.8 10.1 ns 9% more males (43.5%) agree compared with females (34.5%)



They would reduce my travel time

2.83 (1.15)




Table 6. Conditions under which to use AVs Conditions of use of AVs: I would want to use a fully-automated car (i.e., completely self-driving) under the following conditions





Somewhat agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)



When I am tired or fatigued 3.74 (1.26)


ns Older respondents were less likely to agree compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.093)

To transport me at times when I am physically and/or mentally unable to drive manually (e.g. after a stroke; due to age-related impairments)

3.60 (1.31)


ns ns

When driving is boring and monotonous

3.54 (1.26)

11.2 8.9 18.5 36.7 24.6 ns ns ns

When traffic is congested 3.35 (1.34)

14.6 12.5 17.8 33.2 21.9 ns 6.4% more males (58.4%) agreed compared with females (52.0%)


In situations in which I feel uncomfortable driving (e.g. in bad weather, at night)

3.32 (1.34)

15.0 12.5 18.9 32.8 20.8 ns ns ns

After consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication (at a legally acceptable level)

3.30 (1.45)


6.2% more males (56.8%) agreed compared with females (50.6%)


To pick up my kids from school or bring them to soccer practice

2.58 (1.27)

26.8 22.0 26.4 16.0 8.8 ns 9.4% more males (29.7%) agreed compared with females (20.3%)



Table 7. Willingness to pay Willingness to pay for AV technology: Would you be willing to pay more, less or the same for...

Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Less (%)

Same (%)

More (%)

A lot more (%)



A partially-automated car (i.e. in which only some driving functions can be controlled by the car; e.g. a car that helps driver stay in lane and maintain speed) compared to the same car without automation?

2.19 (0.84)

21.0 44.9 28.0 6.1 ns ns Younger respondents were more likely to be willing to pay more compared with older respondents (ρ=-.171)

A fully-automated car (i.e. in which all driving functions can be controlled by the car) compared to the same car without automation?

2.30 (0.93)


Road infrastructure (e.g. lane markings) that would help an automated car function more effectively?

2.12 (0.84)


Special training and licensing procedures to be put in place to use automated cars?

2.17 (0.88)

24.4 41.2% 27.0 7.4 ns ns Younger respondents were more likely to be willing to pay more compared with older respondents (ρ=-.091)

If you are willing to pay more for a fully-automated car, how much would you be willing to pay than for your current vehicle? (in $AUD)

Mean = $AUD 13,784 (SD = $AUD 79,664) Median = $AUD 5000

Respondents from Australia would pay significantly more compared to New

Zealand

Females would pay significantly more

compared to males

Older respondents were less likely to pay more compared

with younger respondents (ρ=-.134)


Table 8. Scenarios involving automated cars Scenarios involving AVs Mean

(SD) Response options Analyses

Strongly disagree (%)



Somewhat agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)


Gender differences

Age differences

I would feel comfortable taking back control of an automated car, if requested by the car

4.16 (1.08)


Older respondents were more likely to agree compared with younger respondents (ρ=.126)

I would feel comfortable giving control to an automated car in appropriate circumstances

3.45 (1.22)



I would drive an automated car manually from time to time (if it allowed me to do so)

4.05 (1.08)

4.9 4.0 14.1 35.5 41.5 ns ns ns

I would feel comfortable sharing a driverless car (e.g. carpool) with other people to take me to my chosen destination

3.13 (1.26)



I would feel comfortable travelling on public transport in which the vehicle (e.g. bus, taxi) is driverless

2.92 (1.35)




Table 9. Safety and automated vehicles Safer than experienced driver Mean





Somewhat agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

Country differences

(Australia vs New Zealand


I believe that a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving) will be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver

3.19 (1.16)

10.1 16.3 30.2 31.0 12.4 ns 14.4% more males (51.1%) agree

compared with females (36.7%)

Older respondents were less likely to agree compared with

younger respondents (ρ=-.091)

Safety in mixed fleet Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses I’d feel very unsafe (%)

I’d feel unsafe (%)

I’d feel neither safe nor unsafe (%)

I’d feel safe (%)

I’d feel very safe (%)

Country differences



If driving a conventional vehicle, how safe or unsafe would you feel when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic?

3.00 (1.07)

8.9 23.5 33.8 26.5 7.3 ns 16.5% more males (42.7%) would feel

safe compared with females (26.2%)

Older respondents were less likely to say they would feel safe compared with younger

respondents (ρ=.111)


Table 10. Use cases for driverless public transport Use cases Please state your agreement/disagreement with the following statements:

Mean (SD)




Somewhat agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

Country differences


Gender differences

Age differences

I would consider travelling in a driverless mini-shuttle (e.g. mini-bus) connecting a public transport stop with my home or workplace

2.98 (1.25)



ns

I would prefer to use driverless public transport/ride sharing (i.e. riding in a car with other people) if it was cheaper than conventional human-driven public transport/ride sharing

2.94 (1.23)

16.6 19.5 26.9 27.6 9.4 ns 7% more males (40.7%) agree


ns

I would prefer to use driverless public transport over public transport if the driverless service was available on demand (i.e. available when you want)

3.00 (1.25)


compared with females (35%)

ns


Table 11. Ownership of automated vehicles Owner - congestion Mean





Somewhat agree (%)

Strongly agree (%)

Country differences



I would be prepared to use driverless public transport/ride sharing, rather than a driverless private vehicle, if it helped reduce congestion

3.14 (1.22)


5.8% more males (48.4%) agree compared with

females (42.6%)

ns

Owner - travel Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Much less often (%)

Less often (%)

The same (%)

More often (%)

Much more often (%)

Country differences



If you owned a driverless car instead of a conventional (i.e. manually driven) car, would you expect to travel more or less than you do now?

3.12 (0.86)

5.7 5.4 66.7 15.8 6.5 ns 3.6% more males (24.2%) think they would more often compared with

females (20.6%)

Older respondents were less likely to say more often compared

with younger respondents (ρ=-.208)


Table 12. Partially-automated vehicles Partially-automated vehicles: Interest Mean


Not interested (%)

Not sure (%)

Somewhat interested (%)

Very interested (%)

Country differences



If you were to purchase a new vehicle, would you be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was partially-automated (i.e. a vehicle in which some driving functions can be controlled by the vehicle such as steering and the ability to follow other vehicles)?

2.59 (0.98)

17.5 24.6 39.2 18.6 ns ns Older respondents were less likely to say they would be interested

compared with younger respondents (ρ=-.152)

Partially-automated vehicles: Pay more Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses No (%) Not

sure (%)

Yes (%) Yes – very (%)

Country differences



Would you be prepared to pay more for a vehicle with these features (as described in the question above)?

2.13 (0.95)

32.3 29.8 31.0 6.9 ns ns Older respondents were less likely to say yes


Partially-automated vehicles: Using features Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Very unlikely (%)

Unlikely (%)

Not sure (%)

Likely (%) Very likely (%)

Country differences



If you were driving a vehicle with these features (as described in the question above), would you use them?

3.53 (1.15)

8.6 8.4 24.2 39.4 19.5 ns 12.9% more males (65.7%) think this is

likely compared with females (52.8%)

ns

Partially-automated vehicles: Public transport Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Much more unlikely (%)

More unlikely (%)

The same (%)

More likely (%)

Much more likely (%)

Country differences



Would you be more or less likely to use a public transport/ride share vehicle if it had

2.97 (0.96)

8.6% 12.2% 54.2 18.1% 7.0% ns 12% more males (31.5%) think this

Younger respondents were more likely to say


these features (as described in the question above)?

would be more likely compared with males

(19.5%)

more likely compared with older respondents

(ρ=-.147)


Table 13. Connected vehicles Connected vehicles: Interest Mean


Not interested (%)

Not sure (%)

Somewhat interested (%)

Very interested (%)

Country differences (Australia vs New

Zealand

Gender differences

Age differences

If you were to purchase a new vehicle, would you be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was wirelessly connected to other vehicles and road infrastructure around you (e.g. so as to warn you if you were going to collide with other vehicles or roadway hazards)?

2.68 (0.99)

15.8 22.8 39.1 22.3 ns 9.9% more males (66.7%) would be

interested compared with females (56.8%)

Older respondents were less likely to say they would

be interested compared with younger respondents

(ρ=-.095)

Connected vehicles: Pay more Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses No (%) Not

sure (%)

Yes (%) Yes – very (%)


Zealand

Gender differences

Age differences

Would you be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle (as described in the question above)?

2.13 (0.95)

32.2 30.1 30.1 7.7 ns 7.8% more males (41.9%) said yes compared with females (34.1%)

Older respondents were less likely to say yes


Connected vehicles: Using features Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Very unlikely (%)

Unlikely (%)

Not sure (%)

Likely (%)

Very likely (%)


Zealand

Gender differences

Age differences

If you were driving a connected vehicle with these safety features (as described in the question above), would you activate (and use) these features?

3.51 (1.18)

9.5 7.9 25.4 36.2 21.0 ns 9.3% more males (62.2%) think this is likely compared

with females (52.9%)

ns

Connected vehicles: Public transport Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Much more unlikely (%)

More unlikely (%)

The same (%)

More likely (%)

Much more likely (%)


Zealand

Gender differences

Age differences


Would you be more or less likely to use a public transport/ride share vehicle if it was connected and had these features (as described in the question above)?

2.86 (1.01)

7.8 13.1 43.9 27.0 8.1 ns 10.2% more males (40.6%)

think this would be likely

compared to females (30.4%)

Younger respondents were more likely to say more

likely compared with older respondents (ρ=-.106)

Connected vehicles: Concern Mean (SD)

Response options Analyses Unconcerned (%)

Not sure (%)

Somewhat concerned (%)

Very concerned (%)


Zealand

Gender differences

Age differences

How concerned or unconcerned would you be about having your vehicle wirelessly connected to, and communicating automatically with, other vehicles and road infrastructure?

2.62 (0.94)

14.4 27.4 39.7 18.4 5.7% more Aus (59.1%) are concerned

compared with NZ (53.4%)

ns Older respondents were more likely to be concerned



Appendix B

Table 1. Awareness of highly automated vehicle technology by place of residence Awareness of highly automated vehicle technology: What exposure have you had to the following automated vehicle driving functions?

Rank from largest to smallest - % who have at least heard of this function

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Car can automatically adapt its speed to changing speed limits ACT VIC WA NSW NZ SA QLD NT TAS

69.7 66.1 65.6 65.4 63.9 63.1 62.6 62.5 61.5

Car can stay within the lane by itself ACT NSW QLD WA VIC TAS NZ NT SA

81.7 71.5 70.0 69.8 69.6 68.8 66.9 65.6 65.4

Car can follow vehicle ahead at safe distance by itself ACT NSW QLD VIC NZ TAS SA NT WA

82.6 71.9 71.7 71.0 70.0 69.7 69.1 68.8 66.7

Car can change lanes by itself ACT NSW TAS VIC SA QLD NZ WA NT

65.1 47.8 45.9 45.5 44.5 42.4 42.0 42.0 37.5

Car can avoid collisions with other vehicles and road users (e.g. pedestrians) by itself

TAS ACT NSW VIC NZ SA QLD NT WA

84.4 82.6 73.6 73.2 72.9 70.7 67.0 66.6 66.2

Car can navigate itself to desired destination (find location and follow route)

TAS ACT NSW NT NZ SA VIC WA QLD

78.1 78.0 66.1 66.1 65.1 62.6 62.0 61.6 58.7

Car can park itself ACT TAS VIC NSW NZ WA SA QLD NT

88.1 87.5 85.3 84.8 84.7 82.9 80.9 80.7 73.2

Average across all items ACT TAS NSW VIC NZ SA WA QLD NT

78.3 70.8 68.7 67.5 66.5 65.2 65.0 64.7 62.9


Table 2. Concerns about AVs by place of residence Perceived concerns associated with AVs: If you used a car that was fully automated (i.e., completely self-driving), how concerned or unconcerned would you be about the following issues?

Rank from largest to smallest - % who are concerned

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Vehicle security (e.g. hackers taking control of the car) WA QLD NSW SA VIC NT ACT NZ TAS

78.7 77.1 76.7 75.1 73.9 73.3 72.1 71.3 67.3

Data privacy (e.g. being able to have your car’s location and destination tracked) QLD WA NSW SA ACT TAS NT VIC NZ

71.9 71.5 70.8 70.3 68.9 68.3 67.7 67.7 63.6

The ability of your car to perform safely in all conditions SA NSW QLD NZ WA VIC TAS NT ACT

79.5 79.1 77.8 76.9 76.4 75.7 72.6 71.9 57.1

Allowing your child to ride in the car by themselves QLD SA NZ NSW NT TAS WA VIC ACT

88.7 86.1 86.0 85.1 84.4 83.8 83.3 82.3 78.4

Being legally and financially responsible if the car is involved in an accident or makes mistakes (e.g. speeding)

QLD SA WA ACT NSW NZ TAS VIC NT

89.6 88.7 87.3 85.8 85.6 85.4 85.0 84.3 81.3

Cars moving by themselves from one location to another while unoccupied (e.g. in order to pick up passengers or deliver goods)

SA QLD NSW TAS WA VIC ACT NZ NT

75.6 75.0 74.9 73.6 71.6 71.5 68.6 65.9 59.4

Riding in a car with no driver QLD WA NSW SA TAS VIC NZ ACT NT

72.9 71.9 71.3 70.7 68.6 67.8 64.2 56.3 51.6

Average across all items QLD SA NSW WA VIC TAS NZ NT ACT

79.0 78.0 77.6 77.2 74.7 74.2 73.3 69.9 69.6


Table 3. AV driving functions by place of residence Driving functions/tasks undertaken by AV: If I used a fully-automated car (i.e., completely self-driving), I would be comfortable and/or uncomfortable allowing it to...

Rank from largest to smallest - % who are comfortable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Control speed by itself ACT NZ NSW QLD VIC NT WA SA TAS

66.3 57.8 55.3 55.3 54.3 53.1 51.6 49.9 48.1

Stay within the lane by itself ACT NZ NSW QLD WA VIC SA NT TAS

70.5 61.5 59.5 59.3 58.5 57.7 56.5 56.3 49.5

Follow the vehicle ahead at a safe distance by itself ACT NSW NT VIC QLD NZ SA WA TAS

40.6 39.6 37.5 37.1 36.9 35.0 33.4 32.5 30.8

Change lanes by itself ACT NT QLD NSW VIC NZ SA WA TAS

50.5 43.8 39.8 38.5 38.3 37.2 36.8 35.6 28.0

Avoid collisions with other vehicles and road users by itself ACT NT QLD NZ NSW VIC TAS WA SA

57.7 56.3 53.4 51.6 51.3 50.3 49.5 47.9 47.8

Navigate itself to a desired location (find and follow route) ACT NT NZ QLD NSW VIC WA TAS SA

61.4 61.3 56.8 55.4 55.0 52.9 52.7 50.0 48.6

Comply with all traffic laws by itself (e.g. stopping at red lights) NZ QLD NSW NT WA ACT VIC TAS SA

56.1 54.2 53.2 53.1 52.3 51.0 50.9 50.0 49.9

Average across all items ACT NT NZ QLD NSW VIC WA SA TAS

56.9 51.6 50.9 50.6 50.3 48.8 47.3 46.1 43.7


Table 4. Secondary task engagement by place of residence

Secondary task engagement when travelling in AV: How likely would you be to engage in the following activities when driving in a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving):

Rank from largest to smallest - % who indicate they would be likely to engage in this activity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Resting ACT NZ NSW WA VIC QLD NT SA TAS

67.0 49.3 48.3 46.8 45.9 41.1 40.6 35.7 30.4

Grooming (e.g. applying makeup) ACT NSW NZ NT VIC WA QLD SA TAS

37.6 33.0 29.6 29.0 28.8 28.2 25.2 19.8 17.1

Doing work ACT NZ NSW NT VIC WA QLD SA TAS

47.1 36.9 36.1 34.4 32.5 31.9 28.0 23.3 17.1

Using personal devices (e.g. mobile phone, iPad) ACT NZ NT WA NSW VIC QLD SA TAS

70.6 61.1 59.4 56.2 56.1 52.2 51.1 46.5 40.4

Reading a book, newspaper, magazine ACT NSW NZ WA VIC QLD NT SA TAS

45.5 41.1 40.0 39.0 37.6 33.4 31.3 30.5 23.3

Eating / drinking NZ NT NSW WA VIC ACT QLD SA TAS

63.9 62.5 60.1 59.8 58.7 56.7 56.4 54.2 50.5

Interacting with other passengers NZ WA SA NSW NT VIC QLD ACT TAS

73.3 70.1 69.6 68.8 68.8 68.6 66.4 62.1 61.0

Observing the scenery NZ SA QLD NSW WA ACT NT VIC TAS

77.6 71.4 70.6 69.9 69.3 68.9 68.8 68.7 64.4

Doing nothing at all SA NSW QLD WA ACT VIC NZ TAS NT

55.1 54.3 53.1 52.6 52.4 50.9 50.0 42.6 41.9

Sleeping ACT NSW NT VIC NZ WA QLD SA TAS

35.9 28.3 25.8 23.3 23.1 21.1 20.0 15.3 14.7


Average across all items ACT NZ NSW WA VIC NT QLD SA TAS

54.4 50.5 49.6 47.5 46.7 46.3 44.5 42.1 36.2


Table 5. Perceived benefits of AVs by place of residence Perceived benefits associated with AVs: State your agreement or disagreement with the following statements regarding fully-automated cars (i.e., completely self-driving)

Rank from largest to smallest - % who agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

They would be safer than non-automated cars ACT NZ NSW WA QLD VIC NT SA TAS

58.7 44.3 43.7 43.0 41.2 41.0 37.9 36.2 25.5

They will allow me to spend time on other activities (e.g. surfing the internet) ACT NZ NSW WA VIC SA NT QLD TAS

59.0 51.1 50.7 47.3 46.1 45.3 45.2 42.2 25.2

They would reduce my travel time NSW ACT WA VIC NZ NT QLD SA TAS

32.4 32.0 30.5 28.4 25.3 23.3 23.1 22.5 11.9

They would consume less fuel ACT WA NSW NZ VIC SA QLD NT TAS

50.5 42.5 41.3 41.0 37.2 35.9 35.8 25.0 22.8

They would be environmentally friendlier ACT NZ NSW WA VIC SA QLD TAS NT

45.9 42.2 41.2 40.5 39.1 38.1 38.0 32.3 27.6

They would allow mobility for people with driving impairments or restrictions (e.g. medical conditions, vision impairments)

NZ NT WA QLD NSW VIC SA ACT TAS

80.9 78.1 77.8 77.4 76.0 75.1 74.1 72.6 68.3

I would not have to worry about looking for a car park NT WA NSW NZ QLD VIC SA TAS ACT

61.3 53.3 50.4 49.5 48.0 48.0 45.2 40.2 38.8

They would reduce overall repair costs (if there are less crashes) NZ NSW ACT QLD VIC WA SA TAS NT

57.3 55.4 54.4 54.1 52.1 51.5 48.9 48.5 48.4

They would reduce insurance premiums (if there are less crashes) NT NZ WA NSW QLD TAS VIC ACT SA

63.3 57.6 57.3 56.3 56.0 54.2 53.5 50.5 49.4

Average across all items ACT NZ NSW WA VIC QLD NT SA TAS

51.4 49.9 49.7 49.3 46.7 46.2 45.6 44.0 36.5


Table 6. Conditions under which to use AVs by place of residence Conditions of use of AVs: I would want to use a fully-automated car (i.e., completely self-driving) under the following conditions


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

When traffic is congested ACT NZ NSW QLD WA VIC SA TAS NT

61.2 58.6 57.2 55.1 54.2 52.4 49.0 45.5 37.5

When I am tired or fatigued ACT NT NZ WA QLD NSW VIC SA TAS

76.6 75.0 74.0 72.2 69.6 67.8 65.2 65.1 61.5

When driving is boring and monotonous NZ ACT QLD NSW WA SA VIC TAS NT

64.7 63.5 61.8 61.4 60.0 59.6 59.5 52.9 50.0

To pick up my kids from school or bring them to soccer practice ACT NSW NT NZ VIC QLD WA TAS SA

36.0 29.3 27.6 23.7 23.7 23.4 20.8 20.2 19.0

After consuming alcohol, drugs or taking medication (at a legally acceptable level)

NT NZ WA ACT SA QLD NSW VIC TAS

65.6 61.1 60.8 56.1 53.3 52.0 51.9 48.7 43.3

In situations in which I feel uncomfortable driving (e.g. in bad weather, at night) NZ NSW QLD ACT WA VIC TAS NT SA

55.8 55.4 53.9 53.8 53.7 51.6 50.0 48.4 48.1

To transport me at times when I am physically and/or mentally unable to drive manually (e.g. after a stroke; due to age-related impairments)

NZ NT WA NSW QLD SA VIC ACT TAS

72.2 71.0 68.0 62.7 62.0 61.1 59.2 57.5 56.0

Average across all items NZ ACT WA NSW QLD NT VIC SA TAS

58.6 57.8 55.7 55.1 54.0 53.6 51.5 50.7 47.1


Table 7. Willingness to pay by place of residence Willingness to pay for AV technology: Would you be willing to pay more, less or the same for...

Rank from largest to smallest - % who are willing to pay more

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A partially-automated car (i.e. in which only some driving functions can be controlled by the car; e.g. a car that helps driver stay in lane and maintain speed) compared to the same car without automation?

ACT NSW VIC WA NZ QLD SA NT TAS

56.9 37.8 33.7 33.5 32.5 32.2 28.3 25.0 22.9

A fully-automated car (i.e. in which all driving functions can be controlled by the car) compared to the same car without automation?

ACT NZ NSW VIC QLD NT SA WA TAS

57.8 46.3 44.3 42.9 42.9 37.5 37.2 37.1 33.0

Road infrastructure (e.g. lane markings) that would help an automated car function more effectively?

ACT NSW NZ VIC QLD NT WA SA TAS

45.9 33.2 32.3 31.3 29.4 28.1 27.8 25.1 22.9

Special training and licensing procedures to be put in place to use automated cars?

ACT NT NSW VIC NZ QLD WA SA TAS

44.0 43.8 37.9 34.2 33.9 33.9 29.5 28.0 25.7


Table 8. Scenarios involving AVs by place of residence Scenarios involving AVs Rank from largest to smallest - % who agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I would feel comfortable taking back control of an automated car, if requested by the car

QLD SA NZ ACT NSW WA VIC TAS NT

83.7 81.8 80.9 80.0 79.5 78.7 77.4 73.8 73.3

I would feel comfortable giving control to an automated car in appropriate circumstances

ACT NZ NT WA NSW QLD VIC SA TAS

63.2 62.2 59.4 59.4 59.1 57.9 56.9 55.3 49.0

I would drive an automated car manually from time to time (if it allowed me to do so)

NZ SA NT QLD NSW VIC WA TAS ACT

80.2 79.6 78.1 77.7 77.4 74.8 74.1 69.5 67.6

I would feel comfortable sharing a driverless car (e.g. carpool) with other people to take me to my chosen destination

ACT NZ NSW VIC SA QLD WA NT TAS

54.7 46.8 46.2 43.5 43.1 42.4 41.1 38.7 38.5

I would feel comfortable travelling on public transport in which the vehicle (e.g. bus, taxi) is driverless

ACT NSW WA NZ VIC SA NT QLD TAS

49.5 42.6 42.5 40.0 39.3 35.7 34.4 34.0 28.7


Table 9. Safety and AVs by place of residence Safety and fully automated cars Rank from largest to smallest - % who agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I believe that a fully-automated car (i.e. completely self-driving) will be safer than a car driven by an experienced human driver

ACT NZ NSW VIC QLD WA SA NT TAS

52.3 44.8 44.7 43.8 42.9 41.6 38.0 37.5 33.9

Mixed fleet Rank from largest to smallest - % who said they would feel safe

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If driving a conventional vehicle, how safe or unsafe would you feel when interacting with driverless vehicles in traffic?

ACT NT NSW VIC TAS QLD NZ WA SA

47.7 43.8 37.2 33.3 33.0 32.6 32.0 30.8 29.8


Table 10. Use cases for driverless public transport by place of residence Use cases for driverless public transport Please state your agreement/disagreement with the following statements:


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I would consider travelling in a driverless mini-shuttle (e.g. mini-bus) connecting a public transport stop with my home or workplace

NZ NSW ACT QLD SA VIC NT WA TAS

43.9 43.5 43.1 38.6 38.2 38.1 37.5 37.1 33.9

I would prefer to use driverless public transport/ride sharing (i.e. riding in a car with other people) if it was cheaper than conventional human-driven public transport/ride sharing

NZ ACT NSW QLD VIC NT TAS WA SA

40.5 40.4 40.0 36.6 34.9 34.4 33.0 32.1 30.4

I would prefer to use driverless public transport over public transport if the driverless service was available on demand (i.e. available when you want)

ACT NSW NZ QLD NT VIC WA SA TAS

51.4 41.9 41.8 38.1 37.5 37.5 33.3 32.7 27.5


Table 11. Ownership of AVs Owner - congestion Rank from largest to smallest - % who agree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I would be prepared to use driverless public transport/ride sharing, rather than a driverless private vehicle, if it helped reduce congestion

ACT NZ NSW NT VIC WA QLD SA TAS

54.1 51.2 47.3 43.8 43.3 42.4 42.1 40.6 38.5

Owner - travel Rank from largest to smallest - % who said they would travel more

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If you owned a driverless car instead of a conventional (i.e. manually driven) car, would you expect to travel more or less than you do now?

ACT NT NSW VIC WA NZ QLD SA TAS

37.6 31.3 27.6 21.7 20.3 19.9 19.5 15.7 12.8


Table 12. Partially-automated vehicles Partially-automated vehicles: Interest Rank from largest to smallest - % who are interested

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If you were to purchase a new vehicle, would you be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was partially-automated (i.e. a vehicle in which some driving functions can be controlled by the vehicle such as steering and the ability to follow other vehicles)?

ACT NSW NZ VIC NT WA QLD SA TAS

66.1 60.5 60.2 59.6 56.3 55.7 54.6 49.5 40.4

Partially-automated vehicles: Pay more Rank from largest to smallest - % who said yes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Would you be prepared to pay more for a vehicle with these features (as described in the question above)?

ACT NSW VIC NZ WA QLD SA TAS NT

61.5 42.1 39.9 36.7 34.8 34.0 30.4 26.6 25.0

Partially-automated vehicles: Using features Rank from largest to smallest - % who said it was likely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If you were driving a vehicle with these features (as described in the question above), would you use them?

ACT NZ VIC NSW NT WA QLD SA TAS

66.1 60.5 60.0 59.8 59.4 57.2 57.0 56.3 43.1

Partially-automated vehicles: Public transport Rank from largest to smallest - % who said they would be more likely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Would you be more or less likely to use a public transport/ride share vehicle if it had these features (as described in the question above)?

ACT NSW NZ VIC WA NT QLD SA TAS

42.2 30.4 23.8 23.6 23.6 21.9 21.6 20.7 18.3


Table 13. Connected vehicles Connected vehicles: Interest Rank from largest to smallest - % who are interested

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If you were to purchase a new vehicle, would you be interested in purchasing a vehicle which was wirelessly connected to other vehicles and road infrastructure around you (e.g. so as to warn you if you were going to collide with other vehicles or roadway hazards)?

ACT NZ NSW VIC NT QLD WA SA TAS

67.0 63.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 60.4 58.0 53.4 48.6

Connected vehicles: Pay more Rank from largest to smallest - % who said yes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Would you be prepared to pay more for a connected vehicle (as described in the question above)?

ACT NSW VIC WA NZ QLD NT SA TAS

60.6 42.0 38.6 36.3 36.2 34.5 31.3 28.8 28.4

Connected vehicles: Using features Rank from largest to smallest - % who said it was likely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

If you were driving a connected vehicle with these safety features (as described in the question above), would you activate (and use) these features?

ACT NZ NSW VIC QLD WA SA NT TAS

67.0 59.5 59.3 58.0 56.7 51.3 51.0 50.0 41.3

Connected vehicles: Public transport Rank from largest to smallest - % who said they would be more likely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Would you be more or less likely to use a public transport/ride share vehicle if it was connected and had these features (as described in the question above)?

ACT NSW VIC NZ QLD WA SA TAS NT

49.5 39.8 34.6 34.4 32.5 31.2 30.9 28.4 28.2

Connected vehicles: Concern Rank from largest to smallest - % who would be concerned

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

How concerned or unconcerned would you be about having your vehicle wirelessly connected to, and communicating automatically with, other vehicles and road infrastructure?

NSW VIC ACT QLD WA SA NZ TAS NT

63.0 59.0 58.7 57.7 57.4 53.4 53.4 52.3 40.6

Documents

Public Opinion about Automated and Connected Vehicles in ...€¦ · used to inform public policy, regulation, research, and design of automated vehicles in Australia. It is planned