The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 123 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 79 of the 224 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review
Open accessAbstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) or self-driving cars have the potential to provide many benefits such as improving mobility and reducing the energy and emissions consumed, travel time, and vehicle ownership.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes prior research on how the public views and accepts autonomous vehicles, with emphasis on safety, ethics, liability, regulation, and the COVID-19 pandemic. It concludes that perceived safety and trust are central to adoption, that acceptance varies by demographics and prior experience, and that pandemic conditions may have made attitudes more favorable.
Key findings
- Safety dominates adoption concerns: in a 467-person U.S. survey, 82% ranked safety as the most important factor, 12% chose laws, and 6% chose cost; 74% did not trust AVs or think they outperform human drivers, and 62.5% would wait more than two years before buying. Other surveys reported high safety concern—92% about poor weather and pedestrian interaction, 69% about the AV system, 76% across 109 countries, and 68% in Australia.
- Liability and regulation are major barriers: 72% were uncomfortable being liable for an AV accident, 10% were comfortable, and 18% were neutral; 80% thought a special license should be required, while 40% said laws affect their purchase desire and 50% were neutral. In another survey, about 60% believed they should not be liable, 14% believed they should be, 71% assigned liability to manufacturers, and 22% to insurers; liability concern was 60%, 56%, 84%, and 64% across cited surveys.
- Ethical preferences are mixed and context-dependent: the Moral Machine gathered millions of respondents from 233 countries and 40 million decisions in ten languages, finding preferences for sparing humans over animals, more lives, and younger lives, with regional clusters. Bonnefon et al. found 76% preferred a utilitarian crash algorithm, but respondents were more likely to buy a non-utilitarian vehicle; Hohenberger found rejection of self-focused and utilitarian settings, with law-based or random choices preferred; Frison et al. found only 16% would sacrifice pedestrians to save themselves, while Faulhaber et al. found almost half would sacrifice themselves to save one other road user.
- Acceptance differs by experience, income, age, gender, education, and pandemic context: in France, 73% of those with prior AV experience preferred AV trips versus 55% without; low-income-country respondents were more positive than high-income ones (40%, 20%, and 23% concerned in high-, medium-, and low-income countries). Younger and male respondents were generally more positive; 19% of males versus 12.4% of females were interested in fully AVs, and 71% of highly educated versus 52% of less educated respondents preferred AVs. During COVID-19, a 1,003-person U.S. survey found 86% would ride an AV if given the chance, 66% would consider regular use, and 82% saw AVs as the future, compared with an earlier PAVE survey where 48% said they would never consider an AV.
Methods
- Design: narrative comprehensive review of prior studies on public acceptance and perception of AVs, organized around safety, ethics, liability and regulation, and pandemic implications.
- Data/sample: synthesizes quantitative surveys, simulator studies, social-media sentiment analysis, ethical-decision experiments, accident summaries, and economic/cost analyses from multiple countries; no new primary data were collected.
- Analysis: qualitative synthesis and descriptive comparison of reported percentages, trends, tables, and figures, including accident counts, ethical approaches, cost comparisons, and demographic patterns.
Limitations
- The paper does not present a formal limitations section, but it identifies gaps: few studies examine the impact of AV accidents on public attitudes, liability acceptance, truck-driver and fleet-operator views, and disabled users’ acceptance; it also notes that ethical decision-making lacks consensus and that surveys rely on respondents’ imagination because fully autonomous vehicles are not widely available.
- Evident from the text: the review lacks a stated systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria, relies heavily on self-reported survey data and hypothetical scenarios, and its 2021 publication date limits coverage of later AV developments and post-pandemic evidence.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
81 Own interpretation · 69 Sources not found · 42 No full text of the sources · 33 Partly supported · 25 No basis given · 23 Couldn’t confirm · 15 Supported · 6 Not checked yet · 5 Own result · 3 Not supported · 3 Own method · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The survey by Kyriakidis et al. that received response from 109 countries shows that 76% of the respondents are highly concerned about the safety of the AV system [36].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [36] Schoettle, B., Sivak, M.: Motorists' preferences for different levels of vehicle automation (2015)Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract describes a survey of 505 licensed drivers in the U.S., not respondents across 109 countries. The ‘Concern about riding in self-driving vehicles’ section reports that 35.6% were very concerned about riding in a completely self-driving vehicle; it does not report that 76% were highly concerned about AV system safety. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“87% of the survey have previous experience with AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 reports that 87% had heard of automated vehicles before the survey, not that they had experienced them. Section 5 says only a minority had ridden the automated buses demonstrated in La Rochelle. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Respondents were very concerned about the safety aspects of the AV system that only 6.9% of the respondents have no concerns regarding the AV system.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 (page unavailable) discusses general concerns about autonomous vehicles, including distrust, privacy and cyber-attacks. Our copy does not report Casley et al.'s survey or the claim that 6.9% of respondents had no concerns; searches for that figure and the survey found no matching passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Additionally, laws are ranked as the second factor that influences the public acceptance towards AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Further considerations about AVs” (page unavailable), discusses both public acceptability and the need for new legislation. It says legal aspects may delay the introduction of self-driving vehicles, but does not rank laws as the second factor influencing public acceptance. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“These results can translate the trust issue as most people (62.5%) prefer to wait more than two years before considering AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 discusses public distrust and acceptance of autonomous vehicles, but does not report a purchase-delay survey. Searches for Casley, 62.5%, and a wait of more than two years found no such result in our copy; the conclusion’s timelines concern vehicle implementation, not respondents’ purchase preferences. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The survey by Schoettle and Sivak in US, UK and Australia shows that 92% of the respondents are highly concerned about the safety of the AV in poor weather and about the interaction between the vehicle and pedestrians [34].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The References identify a Schoettle and Sivak survey covering the U.S., U.K., and Australia. However, the cited paper’s discussion of AV safety (Section 4.1; page unavailable) does not report that 92% of those respondents were highly concerned about poor-weather safety or vehicle–pedestrian interaction; searches for those terms and the percentage found no such result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The survey by Schoettle and Sivak in the US shows that 69% of the respondents are highly concerned about the safety of the AV system [35].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [35] Schoettle, B., Sivak, M.: A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia (2014) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Concerns about using connected vehicles’ section and survey question Q4 show that U.S. respondents were asked about safety consequences of equipment or system failure. But the paper surveys connected vehicles, not autonomous-vehicle (AV) systems, and the passages retrieved from Table 4 do not substantiate the claim that 69% were highly concerned. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The survey by Greaves et al. in Australia shows that 68% of the respondents are highly concerned about the safety of the AV system [37].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [37] Kyriakidis, R., et al.: Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part F Traff. Psychol. Behav. 32, 127 (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 1.1 (page unavailable) does not mention a Greaves survey or report that 68% of Australian respondents were highly concerned about AV safety. It instead reports that 16% of Australian respondents in a Schoettle and Sivak survey were “very concerned” about system failure and performance; its 68% figure concerns acceptability among French drivers. Searched for Greaves, 68%, and Australian safety concerns. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In a situation, when a person suddenly appears in front of an AV and the distance ahead is not enough to brake, the AV will not have a choice but crashing.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [21] Sivak, M., Schoettle, B.: Road safety with self-driving vehicles: general limitations and road sharing with conventional vehicles (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, 2015-01) (2015).
Section 3.1.1 (Other traffic participants) gives the example of a pedestrian suddenly stepping into the roadway. It says that when the distance is very short, even a self-driving vehicle braking optimally might not stop in time because of stopping-distance limitations. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This dilemma can occur when a collision is unavoidable, so the vehicle’s software has to choose how and what to crash. [142–145].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [142] Lim, H.S.M., Taeihagh, A.: Algorithmic decision-making in avs: understanding ethical and technical concerns for smart cities. MDPI Sustain. 11, 5791 (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5.2 (Ethics; page unavailable) describes a hypothetical AV with faulty brakes that must continue into five pedestrians or swerve into one, supporting the idea of a choice between crash outcomes. But it cautions that trolley-problem scenarios make unrealistic assumptions about actual driving, so it does not establish that AV software generally has to make such a choice whenever a collision is unavoidable. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites [143] Lin, P.: The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [144] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/280360/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [145] Worstall, T.: When should your driverless car from google be allowed to kill you? Forbes. 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/18/when-should-your-driverless-car-from-google-be-allowed-to-kill-you/#36e3f970fa5b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In conclusion, one of the main problems facing AVs is that unlike human drivers, the decisions of AVs on how to crash are pre-defined by a programmer [148].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [148] Gerdes, J.C., Thornton, S.M.: Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. Autonomes Fahren: Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte. M. Maurer, J. C. (2015) source
Section 5.1 contrasts human driving preferences with AV responses crafted by designers and says those responses stem from programmed priorities, including when an accident is unavoidable. It supports the paraphrase that programmers define how AVs respond to crash scenarios. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The majority of respondents were comfortable knowing that the car will alert the driver, pull over, and stop if the autonomous system fails.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 discusses public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, and Section 3.3 discusses safety risks. Neither reports a respondent survey or says that a majority felt comfortable with a vehicle alerting the driver, pulling over, and stopping after an autonomous-system failure. Searches for those survey findings and failure-response terms found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The survey by Greaves et al. in Australia shows that 64% of the respondents are highly concerned about the liability of the AV in case of accident [37].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [37] Kyriakidis, R., et al.: Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part F Traff. Psychol. Behav. 32, 127 (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Previous surveys on automated driving’ section discusses liability concerns in a survey covering Australia, but identifies that study as Schoettle and Sivak (2014a), not Greaves et al. Neither that passage nor the searched passages report that 64% of Australian respondents were highly concerned about liability in an accident (searched: Greaves, 64%, liability). (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Different other surveys all over the world and across the years show that people have high levels of concerns regarding the liability of AVs as follows:”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 source
Section 4.6 reports that legal liability was a main concern in many public surveys and says an average of 75% of respondents in those studies were concerned about it. The paper reports those survey findings rather than presenting them as results of its own Ireland-based survey. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) source
The survey results in Table 2 (section 6, Conclusions) show that 56% of respondents were very concerned and 28% moderately concerned about legal liability in an automated-car accident. This paper supports the claim as an example of a survey finding high concern; it does not itself establish the worldwide pattern. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites [200] Cunningham, M., et al.: A survey of public opinion on automated vehicles in Australia and New Zealand. In: 28th ARRB International Conference. 2018, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The survey by Richardson et al. shows that 60% of the respondents are highly concerned about the liability of the AV in case of accident [34].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.5, “AV's Legal Liability” (page not provided), reports that 57.2% of respondents were unwilling to accept legal liability for an AV accident. That supports a broad point about reluctance over liability, but it does not show that 60% were highly concerned about liability; unwillingness to accept liability is a different measure. The cited paper is by Rezaei and Caulfield, not Richardson et al. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“On the other hand, AVs are trained using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning techniques, which makes it hard to identify the reason behind taking a specific decision. AI training involves millions of connections by means of training phase, which makes the process of tracking the decision at a specific moment a hard process and almost impossible [178].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [178] Bartolini, C., Tettamanti, T., Varga, I.: Critical features of autonomous road transport from the perspective of technological regulation and law. Transp. Res. Procedia 27, 791–798 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.002 source
Section 4.1 (Civil liability; page not provided) says that for autonomous cars trained with AI and machine learning, it is hard to identify the exact reason for a decision. It also says that tracing a decision back through millions of configured connections to the training inputs is considered almost impossible. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The survey by Piao et al. in France shows that 56% of the respondents are highly concerned about the liability of the AV in case of accident [199].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) source
The survey approach section places the survey in La Rochelle, France. The influencing factors section reports that 56% of respondents were ‘very concerned’ about legal liability in case of an accident involving automated cars; Table 2 repeats the figure. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“As discussed before the survey study by Casley et al. was conducted in the US with 467 respondents and with the aim of understanding the impact of three factors on the public acceptance of AVs. These three factors are the safety of the system, the cost of the technology, and the liability issue [31].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 discusses public acceptance of autonomous vehicles and liability, but does not describe a Casley et al. survey. Searches for Casley and 467 respondents found no passage identifying the claimed US survey, its sample size, or its three factors. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plainn = 467- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Respondents from high-income countries were concerned about their software failure.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of economic conditions on public acceptance of AVs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [205] Bazilinskyy, P., et al.: An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2534–2542 (2015) source
The Results section reports that people from high-income countries were more concerned about software issues (p = 0.048). The paper’s categories include concerns about software reliability, so “software failure” is a reasonable paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“2/3 of respondents prefer autonomous buses than human-driven buses because of the cost reduction due to no driver costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2 reports that about two-thirds of respondents would take an automated bus when both types were available. But that question assumed equal fares, so the survey does not establish that they preferred automated buses because of lower costs. The section separately identifies lower fares from having no driver costs as an attractive potential benefit; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Additionally, developed countries were less comfortable with the idea of vehicle transmitting data than developing countries [205].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of economic conditions on public acceptance of AVs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [205] Bazilinskyy, P., et al.: An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2534–2542 (2015) source
The Discussion reports that a previous survey found people in higher-GDP countries more concerned about automated vehicles transmitting data than people in low-income countries. That supports the cited comparison, although it is a finding the paper reports from an earlier survey rather than from its analysis of comments. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Additionally, females responded with higher levels of concern than males as 30% of males were concerned about fully AVs compared to 40% of females [35].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [35] Schoettle, B., Sivak, M.: A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia (2014) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Concerns about using connected vehicles” section reports responses by country, and the Conclusions describe general concern about connected-vehicle security and performance. Neither gives concern rates by gender or addresses fully autonomous vehicles. Searches for the 30%/40% figures and male–female comparison found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.77)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Schoettle and Sivak, illustrated that males are more positive toward AVs’ adoption [34].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.6 reports that women were less likely than men to be interested in driving AVs, so the gender comparison is supported. But it presents this as the paper’s own finding and says it aligns with Bansal et al. (2017); the Literature Review mentions Schoettle and Sivak for willingness to pay, not for a gender difference in adoption. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Kyriakidis et al. found that only 5% of respondents are willing to pay more than $ 30,000 for an AV.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Willingness to pay
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [36] Schoettle, B., Sivak, M.: Motorists' preferences for different levels of vehicle automation (2015)Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 1 reports respondents’ income, and the preferred-level-of-vehicle-automation section reports their preferences, but neither addresses willingness to pay. Searches for the $30,000 threshold and vehicle purchase price found no passage supporting the claimed 5%. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“51% of the truck drivers believe that AVs might increase traffic safety and comfort.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 reports the surveyed public’s views on AV safety, but does not identify truck drivers or give a 51% figure for improved safety and comfort. Searches for “51%,” “truck drivers,” and “Richardson” found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed survey result. (LLM, conf=0.76)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Schoettle and Sivak, found that males are more interested in AVs, with 19% of the males fully AVs compared to 12.4% of the females.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [35] Schoettle, B., Sivak, M.: A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia (2014) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 6 (Conclusions; page unavailable) reports a statistically significant gender effect for Q6, which asks about interest in having connected-vehicle technology on a vehicle. It does not give the direction of that difference or the claimed 19% and 12.4% figures. The survey concerns connected vehicles, not fully autonomous vehicles. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Piao et al., found that males are likely to use AVs than females. Of the male respondents, 64% have no problem in making trips in AVs, compared to 55% females [199].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 (Automated cars) reports the same gender comparison and percentages: 64% of male respondents and 55% of female respondents said they would consider using automated cars. It does not establish that those respondents had no problem making trips in them, which is stronger than willingness to consider use. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“73% of people with previous experience with AVs prefer trips on AVs compared with 55% for respondents without previous experience.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 reports the same 73% and 55% figures for respondents with and without experience riding automated vehicles in La Rochelle. It says they would consider using automated cars, not that they preferred trips on AVs over other travel options. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Results revealed that people from low-income countries are more likely positive towards AVs than people from high-income countries.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of economic conditions on public acceptance of AVs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [205] Bazilinskyy, P., et al.: An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2534–2542 (2015) source
The Results section reports that respondents from high-income countries were significantly less likely to make positive comments about automated driving than those from low-income countries (p = .001). This supports the cited comparison, which is based on categorized survey comments. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Also, the legal sector is following the development of AVs instead of taking the lead [178].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [178] Bartolini, C., Tettamanti, T., Varga, I.: Critical features of autonomous road transport from the perspective of technological regulation and law. Transp. Res. Procedia 27, 791–798 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.002 source
Section 3, “Regulation and standardization issues for autonomous road transport” (page not provided), says the legal system follows the development of autonomous technology instead of leading it. This directly supports the paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Although the pandemic has halted many AVs’ pilot studies [215, 226]”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [215] Ongel, et al.: Economic assessment of autonomous electric microtransit vehicles. MDPI Sustain. 11, 648 (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) says autonomous shuttle and bus tests had been conducted and more were planned. Searches for a pandemic, COVID-19, and halted or suspended pilot studies found no passage in our copy addressing whether a pandemic halted AV pilots. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not matchedcites [226] Tchir, J.: Could physical distancing reignite our excitement for autonomous driving? The globe and mail (2020). https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-could-social-distancing-reignite-our-excitement-for-autonomous-driving/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“On the other hand, 33% of respondents preferred autonomous taxis over conventional taxis.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.1 describes a survey in La Rochelle, and section 4.3 reports respondents’ interest in benefits of automated taxis. But section 4.3 does not report that 33% preferred automated taxis over conventional taxis; its percentages measure how attractive particular benefits were. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, in 2018, Goscé and Johansson found a correlation between the use of public transport and the spread of diseases in London.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [230] Goscé, L., Johansson, A.: Analysing the link between public transport use and airborne transmission: mobility and contagion in the London underground. Environ. Health 17, 84 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0427-5 source
The Conclusions report a correlation between London Underground use and influenza-like illness cases across London boroughs. The Discussion likewise describes a correlation between public transport use and infectious disease transmission, while cautioning that correlation does not prove causation. The citing sentence claims correlation, not causation. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Ongel et al. conducted an economic analysis that indicates that autonomous taxis can reduce the operating costs by 60 to 75% compared to conventional vehicles [215].”
- Also stated in: § AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs · hedged
“Ongel et al. conducted an economic analysis that indicates that autonomous taxis can reduce the operating costs by 60 to 75% compared to conventional vehicles [215].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [215] Ongel, et al.: Economic assessment of autonomous electric microtransit vehicles. MDPI Sustain. 11, 648 (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports reductions of up to 75% and 60% in total cost of ownership per passenger-km for autonomous electric microtransit vehicles, compared with conventional counterparts and buses, respectively. It does not report a 60–75% reduction in operating costs for taxis; the Introduction instead cites an approximately 30% reduction in taxis’ total cost of ownership. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs · hedged
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“71% of high education respondents stated that they prefer AVs, compared to 52% for people with low education [199].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of educational level on AVs’ acceptance
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.4 (Automated cars) reports the 71% versus 52% education-group comparison. But respondents said they would consider using automated cars; the passage does not say they preferred AVs. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Results of Piao et al., study showed that people with higher educational levels are more positive towards AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of educational level on AVs’ acceptance
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) source
Section 4.4 (Automated cars) explicitly reports that respondents with a bachelor’s degree or above were more positive towards automated cars: 71% would consider using them, compared with 52% of respondents with lower education. This supports the citing sentence’s paraphrase within the surveyed population. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In 2018, Moreno et al. survey in German showed that 42% of the respondents are willing to share their trips while using AVs [217].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [217] Moreno, A., Michalski, A., Llorca, C., Moeckel, R.: Shared Autonomous Vehicles Effect on Vehicle-Km Traveled and Average Trip Duration. J. Adv. Transp. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8969353 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 (page not provided) reports that 41.5% of respondents—approximately 42%—were willing to use shared autonomous vehicles. But that figure counts taxi or individually used shared-car options, not the separate option of sharing a ride with other passengers. Section 3.2 places the survey in the Munich metropolitan area, though it was offered in both German and English. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Piao et al. survey in France showed that 67% of respondents preferred autonomous buses over human-driven buses because of the cost reduction due to the reduction of the driver costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.2 reports that about two thirds of respondents would take an automated bus when both types were available, and that lower fares from eliminating driver costs were an attractive benefit. But the bus-choice question assumed equal fares, so the paper does not establish that respondents preferred automated buses because of lower costs. The passage says “about two thirds,” not an exact 67%. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Additionally, it was found that underground transportation plays a significant role in the spread of airborne infections [230].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [230] Goscé, L., Johansson, A.: Analysing the link between public transport use and airborne transmission: mobility and contagion in the London underground. Environ. Health 17, 84 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0427-5 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Conclusions report a correlation between London Underground use and influenza-like illness rates. But the Discussion says correlation does not prove causation and that the findings cannot quantify the Underground’s role in transmission, so the claim overstates what was found. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Figure 3 shows that both the public fear and the number of reported accidents have the same trend. While the number of AVs’ accidents increases, people become more scared of AVs, and while the number of AVs’ accidents decline the percentage of people afraid of AVs also declines.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Implications of AVs’ accidents on the public attitude and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [42] Bohn, D. Elon Musk: negative media coverage of autonomous vehicles could be ‘killing people’ (2016). https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/19/13341306/elon-musk-negative-media-autonomous-vehicles-killing-people
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43] Stewart, L., Musa, M., Croce, N.: Look no hands: self-driving vehicles' public trust problem. World economic Forum (2019). https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/self-driving-vehicles-public-trust/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [44] Eisenstein, P.: Not everyone is ready to ride as autonomous vehicles take to the road in ever-increasing numbers. CNBC (2018). https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/14/self-driving-cars-take-to-the-road-but-not-everyone-is-ready-to-ride.html
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no study survived this group to estimate their acceptance of this new technology”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Precepting of AVs for different age groups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Young and mid-age groups are more positive towards AVs than the older age group.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, people with previous experience with AVs are more positive towards AVs than people with no experience.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People from low GDP countries are more positive towards AVs than people from medium and high GDP countries.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, males are more positive towards AVs than females.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, people with high education levels are more positive than people with lower education levels.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the disabled are considered to be one of the early adaptors of AVs as AVs increase their accessibility, no study surveyed this group to understand their acceptance and perception of the AV technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previous experience with AVs has a significant influence on the public acceptance of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“People with previous experience with AVs’ features are more positive towards adopting AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Results of this survey show that both safety and lack of trust in AVs are the main obstacles that prevent people from adopting AVs [32].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32] Casley, L., Jardim, A., Quartulli, A.: A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars Interactive Qualifying Project. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester (2014)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“When the team analyzed AVs’ data in 2020, results showed that AVs are much more likely to be involved in accidents than human drivers.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29] University of Illinois College of Engineering. Platform for testing of autonomous vehicle safety. ScienceDaily. 2019. ScienceDaily, 25 October 2019.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The perceived safety, or rather the perceived lack of safety of AVs, is what will truly sway the opinions of potential buyers.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, at the intersection level, pedestrians were responsible for 80% of accidents [22].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] Lee, C., Abdel-Aty, M.: Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accid. Anal. Prev. 37, 775–786 (2005) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even worse, it could learn behaviors that are completely undesirable if trained with a limited set of data.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the behavior learned by the AI approach cannot maximize overall safety on road due to the self-preservation instincts from a human.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This generates a new dilemma where those who paid or prepared for safety were unfairly targeted in emergency situations [166].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [166] Evans, L.: “Death in traffic: why are the ethical issues ignored?” . Stud. Ethics Law Technol. (2008). https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The second shortcoming of the AI approach is the traceability [169]. Usually, artificial neural networks cannot explain how the decision was made based on the input data.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [169] Arbesman, S.: “Explain it to me again, computer,” Slate, Feb. 25, 2013. Accessed on: Feb. 25, 2013. [Online]. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/02/will_computers_eventually_make_scientific_discoveries_we_can_t_comprehend.single.html
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this approach has its own shortcomings, such as the difficulty in defining the cost function or making it comprehensive and representative.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The main advantage of this approach is its ability to learn human ethics by rewarding the system’s actions or observing human behavior [168].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [168] Russell, S., Norvig, P. (eds.): Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education, Malaysia (2016)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the technological maturation is a critical key factor for the acceptance and success of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, this approach might discourage people from following the safety procedures.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since they have shortcomings, mostly due to the incompleteness to deal with the complex environment, alternative Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches have achieved much more success [167].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [167] Russell, S., Norvig, P. (eds.): Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2010)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a fault tolerance strategy is critical to improve the performance of the vehicle.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Due to the increase in the number of sensors used in AVs and the data fusion process, the probability of software or hardware failures increases in terms of sensor failures, actuators malfunctions, and processing failures [110].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [110] Aitouche, A., Ould-Bouamama, B.: Sensor location with respect to fault tolerance properties. Int. J. Autom. Control 4(3), 298–316 (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the presence of the autonomous system will reduce drivers SA as the driving task will become a secondary task.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Different studies show that increasing the level of automation reduces passengers SA as follows:”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It must be mentioned that 50% of the respondents are in the neutral state which indicates the low level of awareness regarding AVs’ laws.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Maintaining sufficient alertness may be challenging for AVs, as making sudden rises in cognitive demand is exceedingly challenging and potentially dangerous because with low attentional demand, cognitive resources may throttle back to conserve energy [189].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [189] Young, K.L., Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D.: Measuring the effects of driver distraction: Direct driving performance methods and measures. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009). http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420007497.ch7 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, AVs will face new issues related to cybercrime and hacking.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar to accidents and ethical issues associated with AVs, liability, and regulations have a significant influence on public acceptance.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Legally, there is no difference between the liability of the ordinary vehicle driver and AV’s driver to the moment.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, laws are ranked as the second factor that influences the public acceptance towards AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Results of this study showed that increasing the level of automation reduces the SA level from 98% (in manual driven vehicles) to almost 75% (in fully AVs) [191].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [191] Endsley, M., Kiris, E.: The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum. Fact. J. Hum. Fact. Ergonom. Soc. (1995). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779064555 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The survey by Cunningham, Ledger, and Regan in Australia and New Zealand shows that 84% of the respondents are highly concerned about the liability of the AV in case of accident [200].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [200] Cunningham, M., et al.: A survey of public opinion on automated vehicles in Australia and New Zealand. In: 28th ARRB International Conference. 2018, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The administrative perspective is not significantly affected.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, recent studies show that switching the control from the vehicle to the driver might be challenging because of the reduction in drivers; situational awareness.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One of the main challenges facing the introduction of AVs is the required changes in laws to fit AVs. Several regulations need to be adjusted to fit the AV technology such as the laws that state that every car must have a steering wheel, accelerator, or braking pedal [177].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [177] Stoeltje, G.: Policy brief: how does texas law change the legal landscape for automated vehicles. Texas A&M Transportation institute. Transportation Policy Research Center (2017)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A second survey by Rezaei, and Caulfield show that people are not at all willing to accept liability for AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Richardson, N., et al.: Assessing Truck Drivers’ and Fleet Managers’ Opinions Towards Highly Automated Driving. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, cybersecurity represents a major concern for the public.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In summary, a small proportion of the respondents are willing to pay more for AVs [26].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Willingness to pay
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] Walker, A.: Are self-driving cars safe for our cities? (2020). https://www.curbed.com/2016/9/21/12991696/driverless-cars-safety-pros-cons
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“rare studies focused on the perception of truck drivers and fleet operators.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Richardson and Davies found that people become discouraged about AVs with the increase in the number of years driving [204].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Precepting of AVs for different age groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204] Richardson, E., Davies, P.: The changing public's perception of self-driving cars (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, vehicle security is an important feature to gain customers' trust.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, previous experience with AVs has a significant influence on the public acceptance.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Overall conclusion, respondents who had previous background in AVs were more optimistic about it.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [203] Wintersberger, P., et al.: Automated driving system, male, or female driver. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—Automotive'UI 16, pp. 51–58 (2016) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Results showed that: in 2017, there was a negative shift in the public opinion about AVs, when compared to 2014 results.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204] Richardson, E., Davies, P.: The changing public's perception of self-driving cars (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Cunningham et al. found that 66% and 57% of respondents are not willing to pay more for AVs [200].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Willingness to pay
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [200] Cunningham, M., et al.: A survey of public opinion on automated vehicles in Australia and New Zealand. In: 28th ARRB International Conference. 2018, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This feature can be useful for the early detection of diseases [227].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [227] Grosbard, E.: Autonomous vehicles could be crucial in responding to future pandemics. The robot report (2020). https://www.therobotreport.com/autonomous-vehicles-vital-role-solving-future-pandemics/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Start-up companies such as Vayyar are developing vehicles for monitoring vehicle cleanliness and air quality that measure airborne contaminations for infected passengers.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [227] Grosbard, E.: Autonomous vehicles could be crucial in responding to future pandemics. The robot report (2020). https://www.therobotreport.com/autonomous-vehicles-vital-role-solving-future-pandemics/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Affordability is a major concern facing the introduction of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, 23% of the overall trips in Germany are made using a shared mode [218].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [218] Munich (2020). https://civitas.eu/eccentric/munich
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, Apollo has partnered with Neolix for the delivery of food and medical supplies in Beijing [228].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [228] Demaitre, E.: COVID-19 pandemic prompts more robot usage worldwide. The robot report (2020). https://www.therobotreport.com/covid-19-pandemic-prompts-more-robot-usage-worldwide/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, the cost of an AV is almost 322,000 $ because of the Velodyne LIDAR system, visual and radar sensors, and the cost of the driving computer and software [212, 213].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [212] Tannert. Will you ever be able to afford a self-driving car? fastcompany (2014). https://www.fastcompany.com/3025722/will-you-ever-be-able-to-afford-a-self-driving-car
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [213] Nunes, Hernandez. The cost of self-driving cars will be the biggest barrier to their adoption. Harvard Business Review (2019). https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-cost-of-self-driving-cars-will-be-the-biggest-barrier-to-their-adoption
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Surveys showed that males are always more optimistic towards AVs than females as follows:”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A simulation model for Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA to achieve a customer waiting time of two minutes or lower shows high-cost reduction from 21 $ to 2 $ (90% reduction) per day due to reduction in the ownership cost, operating expenses, parking fees and value of time [224].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [224] Burns, L., Jordan, W., Scarborough, B.: Transforming Personal Mobility. The Earth Institute, Columbia University (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Results indicate that autonomous taxis can cost customers up to three times more than conventional vehicles [213].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [213] Nunes, Hernandez. The cost of self-driving cars will be the biggest barrier to their adoption. Harvard Business Review (2019). https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-cost-of-self-driving-cars-will-be-the-biggest-barrier-to-their-adoption
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Results indicate that AVs have the potential to reduce the operating costs by 30 to 50 cents per mile [214].”
- Also stated in: § AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs · hedged
“Results indicate that AVs have the potential to reduce the operating costs by 30 to 50 cents per mile [225].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [214] US department of transportation Autonomous vehicle fleet ownership and operating costs are expected to be half that of traditional vehicles by 2030–2040 (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [225] Crowe, S., Argo, A.I., Aurora, C., Pony, A.: Uber halt self-driving tests due to COVID-19. The robot report (2020). https://www.therobotreport.com/argo-ai-aurora-cruise-pony-ai-uber-autonomous-vehicles-covid/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs · hedged
In the paper
“However, shared AVs will be cheaper than any other mode [216].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [216] Litman, T.: Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions, implications for transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Thus, private AV might be the preferred mode for many people [216].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [216] Litman, T.: Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions, implications for transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs have already proven their value in the times of pandemics.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Previous AVs’ simulation models show that AVs as a shared mode (similar to Uber- the vehicle is shared between customers, but it serves one customer at a time) can provide the same mobility with low trip costs when compared to human-driven vehicles or human-driven taxis as follows:”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, AVs have the potential to shift the personal transportation from personal use to shared use.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, over time communities and individuals learn more about this new technology, and their perceptions, expectations, and stated behavioral responses are likely to change, in some cases rapidly.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the previous discussion, it is shown that AVs can provide the same mobility with low trip costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, results of the previous surveys rely on the imagination of the respondents regarding the operation of AVs in the future.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Previous survey respondents' answers rely on their imagination of how AVs will operate in the future.
In the paper
“Additionally, in Florida, the Mayo Clinic has started using the AV developed by Beep to transport COVID-19 tests from the testing site to the processing laboratory [229].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [229] Ford, T.: Autonomous shuttles help transport COVID-19 tests at Mayo Clinic in Florida. Mayo Clinic (2020). https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/autonomous-shuttles-help-transport-covid-19-tests-at-mayo-clinic-in-jacksonville/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Additionally, one study in New York City entitled “The Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York City” by an MIT economics professor shows that subways are the major source for the widespread of the virus [221]”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [221] Harris, J.E.: The Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York City. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 27021, Updated April 24, 2020. http://web.mit.edu/jeffrey/harris/HarrisJE_WP2_COVID19_NYC_24-Apr-2020.pdf source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Abraham et al., found that males were comfortable with higher levels of automation with 53% of the males have no problem allowing the vehicle to take control compared with 40% of females [207].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [207] Abraham, H., et al.: Autonomous vehicles and alternatives to driving: trust, preferences, and effects of age. In: Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting (2017).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it must be mentioned that findings of the previous surveys are not guaranteed, because highly or fully autonomous and connected vehicles are not currently available on the market.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Highly or fully autonomous and connected vehicles are not currently available on the market.
In the paper
“In Manhattan, results show high-cost reduction from 7.8 $ per trip (using the traditional yellow taxi) to 0.8 $ per trip (88% reduction) due to the reduction in the ownership cost, operating expenses, and central coordination.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [224] Burns, L., Jordan, W., Scarborough, B.: Transforming Personal Mobility. The Earth Institute, Columbia University (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs have proven their ability in addressing some of the biggest challenges confronting society in pandemics.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Result of this survey shows that the level of awareness, and interest in autonomous systems in general, increases while people are facing this new world as they can not necessarily do things in the same way that they did in the past.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This dilemma has a significant influence on the public acceptance of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, AVs have the potential to become part of our daily life in a post COVID-19 world.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“PAVE survey showed that 48% of the Americans would never consider an AV for their trip.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [233] Teale, C.: Poll: 3 in 4 Americans say AV tech 'not ready for primetime'. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/poll-3-in-4-americans-say-av-tech-not-ready-for-primetime/578355/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A recent survey by The Motional Consumer Mobility in the US shows that the public enthusiasm in AVs is growing [231].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [231] The Motional Consumer Mobility. The Motional Consumer Mobility Report. 2020. https://motional.com/mobilityreport/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Results show that 62% of respondents are willing to pay more than 2.3 $ to receive deliveries using autonomous delivery robots or AVs [234].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [234] Pani, A., Mishra, S., Golias, M., Figliozzi, M.: Evaluating public acceptance of autonomous delivery robots during COVID-19 pandemic. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 89, 102600 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102600 source
plainn = 483- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, results of this survey show significant increase in the level of interest in AVs in the US when compared with another survey that was conducted by Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE) just before the widespread effects of COVID-19 hit the U.S [233].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [233] Teale, C.: Poll: 3 in 4 Americans say AV tech 'not ready for primetime'. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/poll-3-in-4-americans-say-av-tech-not-ready-for-primetime/578355/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs can provide effective, safe mobility to help people to move to their essential activities.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created a surge in the public interest and demand for autonomous delivery robots since it can provide contactless delivery as discussed above.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 101
- It may state two separate claims as one. 118
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Richardson et al. conducted an online and in paper survey for 69 truck drivers and 17 fleet managers [34].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 3.1 (Data Collection) and 3.2 (Demographics of the sample) describe this paper’s survey as an online survey of adults in Ireland, with 475 usable responses. That contradicts the attributed description of an online and paper survey of 69 truck drivers and 17 fleet managers. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Disputed
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“82% of the respondents ranked safety as the most important aspect in order to adopt AVs, 12% believe that laws are the most important aspect, and 6% choose costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 discusses public acceptance, safety concerns and legislation, but gives no survey rankings or percentages. Searches for Casley and the 82%/12%/6% figures found no passage addressing the claimed US survey; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Results show that people become more negative about AVs in 2017 with an average acceptance of 3.3 out of 5 than in 2014 with an average acceptance of 3.6–4.3 out of 5 in different countries [38].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [38] Greaves, S.P., Brett, S., Tony, A., Doina, O., Andrew T.C.: ITLS-WP-18-18 autonomous vehicles down under: an empirical investigation of consumer sentiment (2018)Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.1 discusses differences in AV sentiment across countries, and Table 2 in Section 4.4 reports opinions among Australian respondent groups. Neither gives a 2017 average acceptance of 3.3, a 2014 range of 3.6–4.3, or a comparison showing sentiment became more negative. Searches for those figures and years did not locate the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.73)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“On the other hand, 74% of the respondents believe that AVs would be prone to malfunction, 57% of the respondents were concerned about the system’s poor awareness of its surrounding environment, 52% were concerned about programming issues, and 50% were concerned about the poor control of the system such as braking and steering.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Further considerations about AVs” (page unavailable), discusses public distrust of autonomous vehicles but gives no survey percentages. Searches for Casley, malfunction, and the four reported percentages found no passage reporting these results in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“74% of the respondents do not trust AVs nor believe AVs can perform better than a normal driver, while 26% of the respondents do.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Further considerations about AVs” (page unavailable), discusses general distrust of autonomous vehicles but does not report Casley et al.'s survey. Searches for the 74%/26% split and the comparison with a normal driver found no passage addressing those results. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These results show that safety is a top priority for people and illustrate that people will not adopt AVs until they make sure that this new technology is safe.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 (page not provided) identifies acceptance as an important issue and says some people distrust leaving their lives in a machine’s hands, while most fear cyber-attacks. It does not establish that safety is people’s top priority or that they will not adopt AVs until they are sure the technology is safe. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Generally, results of the moral machine show that people prefer sparing humans over animals, sparing more lives, and sparing young lives [153].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [153] Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J., Rahwan, I.: The moral machine experiment. Nature 563(7729), 59–64 (2018) source
The Discussion identifies three strong preferences in the Moral Machine data: sparing human lives, more lives, and young lives. The paper’s description of the scenarios specifies that the human-life comparison is humans versus pets. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, results show broad differences in relative preferences among different countries [153]. However, results show countries within close proximity to one another showed closer moral preferences, with three dominant clusters in the West, East, and South [154].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [153] Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J., Rahwan, I.: The moral machine experiment. Nature 563(7729), 59–64 (2018) source
The Cultural Clusters section says the three country clusters are broadly consistent with geographical and cultural proximity. Figure 3 labels the three large clusters Western, Eastern, and Southern. These passages support the claim attached to [154]; the separate claim about broad differences is cited to [153]. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [154] Awad, E., Bonnefon, J., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I.: The thorny challenge of making moral machines: ethical dilemmas with self-driving cars. NIM Market Intell Rev 11(2), 42–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2478/nimmir-2019-0015 source
The citation to this source is attached to the second sentence, not the preceding claim about broad country differences. Box 2 states that nearby countries showed closer moral preferences and identifies three dominant clusters in the West, East, and South. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Active FTC depends on fault detection and diagnosis process to monitor the system performance, while passive FTC deals with predefined faults by using a specially designed fixed controller. The main advantage of the active FTC is the ability to detect and identify faults in the system and reconfigure the controller online and in real-time [136–138].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [136] Zhang, Y., Jiang, J.: Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems. Annu. Rev. Control 32(2), 229–252 (2008) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [137] Ducard, G.: Fault-Tolerant Flight Control and Guidance Systems: Practical Methods for Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, pp. 1–20. Springer, London (2009) source
- Supportedcites [138] Benosman, M.: A survey of some recent results on nonlinear fault tolerant control. Math. Probl. Eng. 2010, 1–25 (2009) source
The Introduction defines passive FTC as a controller designed in advance for expected faults. It defines active FTC as using real-time fault detection and diagnosis information to reconfigure control online to maintain stability and optimize performance. This supports the cited distinction, including the fixed-controller paraphrase. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Similar to AVs’ accidents, ethics have a significant influence on the public acceptance of any new technology. AVs’ ethical dilemma is similar to the famous trolley paradox; however, the paradox will be more frequent for the case of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [142] Lim, H.S.M., Taeihagh, A.: Algorithmic decision-making in avs: understanding ethical and technical concerns for smart cities. MDPI Sustain. 11, 5791 (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 says safety risks and potential discrimination can dampen consumer acceptance of AVs, but does not extend that finding to any new technology. Section 5.2 uses a trolley problem to illustrate an AV ethical dilemma and says ethics arise in routine driving; it does not say trolley-like dilemmas will occur more frequently for AVs. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites [143] Lin, P.: The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [144] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/280360/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [145] Worstall, T.: When should your driverless car from google be allowed to kill you? Forbes. 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/18/when-should-your-driverless-car-from-google-be-allowed-to-kill-you/#36e3f970fa5b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) emphasizes on treating fairly all persons regardless of their race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” [146].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [146] Bonnefon, J., Shariff, A., Rahwan, L.: The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science (2016). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2654 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion of ethical autonomous vehicles (p. 7) concerns moral standards for driving algorithms, not the IEEE code of ethics. Searches for the IEEE code, fair treatment, and the listed protected characteristics found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed statement; the IEEE mention in the References (p. 8) is a journal title. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In general, results of the Moral Machine suggest that people want AVs to treat people unequally, preferentially killing some people over others. For example, results show that people prefer saving the lives of women, the young and the rich than the lives of men, the old, and the poor [155].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [155] Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., et al.: Reply to: Life and death decisions of autonomous vehicles. Nature 579, E3–E5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1988-3 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper reports a strong preference for saving younger lives, but describes the preference for saving women as weak, with equality the most common explicit response (Abstract; page unavailable). It says scenario choices favored high-status over low-status characters, while users explicitly preferred equal treatment and would likely be unhappy if that bias were acted upon. Thus the claim overstates what the results show people want AVs to do. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The deontological approach can provide guidance in many scenarios, however, it cannot be considered as a complete ethical system because of the difficulty involved in the articulation of complex human ethics [148]. Additionally, this approach cannot address the problem related to the human factors in edge scenarios shown in a social dilemma, such as: would it matter if the pedestrian was child or”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [148] Gerdes, J.C., Thornton, S.M.: Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. Autonomes Fahren: Technische, rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Aspekte. M. Maurer, J. C. (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not matchedcites [164] Beavers, A.: 21 Moral machines and the threat of ethical nihilism. In: Robot Ethics: Ethical Social Implications Robotics, p. 333 (2011)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These results by contrast clash with many rules such as the IEEE code of ethics and some of the German ethical rules that clearly prohibit any distinction based on personal features such as age. However, results of the moral machine show that people strongly preferred sparing the young (such as children).”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [153] Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J., Rahwan, I.: The moral machine experiment. Nature 563(7729), 59–64 (2018) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Global Preferences section (page unavailable) says German Ethical Rule #9 prohibits distinctions based on personal features such as age and explicitly contrasts that rule with the Moral Machine’s strong preference for sparing children. Our copy does not establish that the IEEE code contains a comparable prohibition, so that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.89)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The platform gathered the opinion of millions of people from 233 countries with 40 million decisions in ten languages.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [152] http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [153] Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J., Rahwan, I.: The moral machine experiment. Nature 563(7729), 59–64 (2018) source
The paper’s Abstract states that the Moral Machine platform gathered 40 million decisions in ten languages from over 2.3 million people in 233 countries and territories. This directly supports the citing sentence; it describes the locations more precisely as countries and territories. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Results show that 80% of people believe that a driving license should be required, 10% are in the neutral state, and 10% believe that no license is required.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Further considerations about AVs” (page unavailable), discusses what type of driving license might be necessary but gives no survey results. Searches for Casley and the 80%/10%/10% breakdown found no passage in our copy reporting those figures. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Surveys showed high levels of concerns regarding security as follows:90.9% of respondents are concerned about vehicle security [34]54% of respondents are concerned about vehicle security [199]68% of respondents are concerned about vehicle security [37]”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 reports concerns about autonomous-vehicle safety and security, particularly when a vehicle has no steering wheel. It does not report that 90.9%, 54%, or 68% of respondents were concerned about vehicle security, so the attributed percentages are unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) source
The 54% figure is the portion attributed to this source. Table 2 (section 6, Conclusions) reports that 54% of respondents were *very concerned* about vehicle security risks from hackers, supporting the citing sentence’s statement that 54% were concerned. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Partly supportedcites [37] Kyriakidis, R., et al.: Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part F Traff. Psychol. Behav. 32, 127 (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.3 reports that respondents were most concerned about software hacking and misuse, supporting the general point about vehicle-security concerns. It does not report that 68% of respondents were concerned about vehicle security; the 68% in section 1.1 refers to acceptability in a different survey. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“One answer might be programming AVs with different ethical theories and let owners determine the vehicle's ethical values. In this approach, liability will be similar to liability nowadays and drivers will be liable in case of collision [178].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [178] Bartolini, C., Tettamanti, T., Varga, I.: Critical features of autonomous road transport from the perspective of technological regulation and law. Transp. Res. Procedia 27, 791–798 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3 says ethical proxies would let car owners choose an ethical theory and make the liability concept close to the current system for human drivers. Section 4.1 says drivers bear liability for damage to third parties under the current system, but it does not say that choosing an ethical theory would make drivers liable for AV collisions; it also discusses possible shifts to owner or manufacturer liability. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“One of the proposed solutions is to define the AV software as the driver. However, this raises new concerns about liability, especially in complex situations [179, 180].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [179] Taeihagh, A., Lim, H.: Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks. Transp. Rev. 39(1), 103–128 (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Liability section (p. 8) says that apportioning liability between an AV’s autonomous system and a human driver is unclear, particularly when a human could have intervened. It also describes difficulty assigning responsibility among the parties that design AV systems. These passages support the concern about liability in complex situations, but they do not describe defining AV software as the driver as a proposed solution. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites [180] Slone, S.: State Laws on Autonomous Vehicles. The council of state governments (2016). http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/state-laws-autonomous-vehicles
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“82% of the respondents ranked safety as the most important aspect in order to adopt AVs, 12% believe that laws are the most important aspect, and 6% choose costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 (page unavailable) discusses public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, including safety concerns and legal barriers, but gives no survey rankings. Searches for Casley and the 82%, 12%, and 6% figures found no passage reporting the claimed results. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“10% of the respondents believe that laws will not impact their desire to purchase an AV, 50% were in the neutral state, and 40% believe that laws will affect their desire in adopting AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Further considerations about AVs” (page not provided), discusses public acceptance and the need for new legislation, but gives no survey results about laws affecting willingness to purchase an AV. Searches for Casley, the 10%/50%/40% figures, and purchase-related responses found no matching passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The main issue is that most counties deal with the vehicle as a thing and the driver is the human who is liable in case of error or accident [178].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [178] Bartolini, C., Tettamanti, T., Varga, I.: Critical features of autonomous road transport from the perspective of technological regulation and law. Transp. Res. Procedia 27, 791–798 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.12.002 source
Section 4 (Liability) says most countries’ traffic laws follow the traditional paradigm of a human driver operating a car treated as a “thing,” with liability weighing on the human. Sections 4.1 and 4.2 describe driver liability for damages and for accidents with criminal consequences, respectively. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“72% of the respondents were not comfortable with being liable, and 10% were comfortable with this idea, while 18% were in the neutral state.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [31] Martínez-Díaz, M., Soriguera, F.: Autonomous vehicles: theoretical and practical challenges. Transp. Res. Procedia 33, 275–282 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4, “Further considerations about AVs” (page unavailable), discusses accident liability but gives no survey results about respondents’ comfort with being liable. Searches for Casley and the 72%, 10%, and 18% figures found no passage in our copy supporting the attributed percentages. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Privacy and liability of AVs are the major sources of fleet managers and truck driver concerns, and a significant portion of truck drivers (46.2%) are concerned about the loss of driving pleasure.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 4.4 (Recording Travel Data by AVs) and 4.5 (AV's Legal Liability) report privacy concerns and reluctance to accept liability among the paper’s survey respondents. They do not establish these as the major concerns of fleet managers or truck drivers, and the copy does not report that 46.2% of truck drivers feared losing driving pleasure. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“74% of truck drivers feel safe about their jobs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 3.2 describes an Irish national survey, while Section 4.1 reports respondents’ views about the safety of autonomous vehicles. Neither the supplied passages nor searches for “74% of truck drivers” and “Richardson” yielded a passage about truck drivers feeling secure in their jobs. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Significant portion of the truck drivers (44%) are not aware of the AV technology, while 90% of fleet managers already have the knowledge about the new technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Data Collection section describes a public survey of road users, and section 4.4 reports awareness of AV travel-data recording, not awareness of AV technology among truck drivers or fleet managers. Searches for Richardson, truck drivers, fleet managers, 44%, and 90% found no passage supporting the attributed figures. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Piao et al. evaluated the public opinion about AVs with the aim of understanding the impact of the previous experience with AVs technology on public acceptance of the technology using an online survey and telephone interview in La Rochelle, France because six automated buses piloted in the city in 2015 [199].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) source
Section 2.2 describes a fleet of six automated buses demonstrated in La Rochelle from December 2014 through April 2015 and says the surveys assessed the demonstration’s impact on public awareness and acceptance. Section 3.1 confirms that the public-opinion study used an online questionnaire and telephone interviews after the demonstration. The demonstration began in 2014, but it did operate in 2015 as claimed. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Bazilinskyy et al. (2015) conducted three surveys in 112 countries with 8862 respondents to estimate the public acceptance in the national level.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of economic conditions on public acceptance of AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [205] Bazilinskyy, P., et al.: An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2534–2542 (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports data from three online surveys totaling 8,862 respondents in 112 countries. But the Results’ national-level comparison used 792 meaningful comments grouped by countries’ GDP per capita, not acceptance responses from all 8,862 respondents or estimates for individual nations. The paper also describes its analysis as using comments extracted from the surveys, rather than saying this study conducted all three surveys. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plainn = 8,862- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Schoettle and Sivak found that almost 60% of respondents in the US, UK, and Australia are not willing to pay more for the new technology, while only 10% are willing to pay much more [34].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Willingness to pay
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Literature Review (page unavailable) identifies Schoettle and Sivak as researchers who surveyed willingness to pay for AVs, but does not report the claimed 60% and 10% findings or identify a US, UK, and Australian sample. Searches for those percentages and countries found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Majority of respondents were optimistic about the AV technology with 50% believe that AVs reduce energy and emissions.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 reports that a majority were optimistic that the listed AV benefits would occur. It reports 51% answering “very likely” for reduced energy consumption and 45% for reduced pollutant emissions, rather than 50% believing AVs would reduce both. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“results show that younger people are more interested in AVs, which contradict with the theory that elder will benefit more from AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Precepting of AVs for different age groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19] Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE). America’s workforce and the self-driving future: realizing productivity gains and spurring economic growth (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [208] Miller, S.A., Heard, B.R.: The environmental impact of autonomous vehicles depends on adoption patterns. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50(12), 6119–6121 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Travel Behavior Patterns” (page not provided), the paper says AV mobility services would benefit elderly and disabled people. It does not report that younger people are more interested in AVs than older people, or say that greater interest among younger people contradicts the benefit to older people. The Discussion describes Millennials as more inclined toward on-demand mobility, not AVs specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites [209] Compass Transportation and Technology prepared for: Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE). The Economic and Social Value of Autonomous Vehicles: Implications from Past Network-Scale Investments (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [210] Brown, A., Gonder, J., Repac, B.: An analysis of possible energy impacts of automated vehicle. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7_13 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [211] Clark, B.Y., Larco, N., Mann, R.F.: The impacts of autonomous vehicles and e-commerce on local government budgeting and finance (2017). source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Piao et al., found that 56% of respondents aged > 65 would consider making trips using AVs, compared to 62% and 61% for people aged between 18 and 34, and 35–64 [199].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Precepting of AVs for different age groups
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) source
Section 4.4, “Automated cars,” reports the same three age-group percentages: 56% for respondents over 65, 62% for those aged 18–34, and 61% for those aged 35–64. It describes willingness to consider using automated cars, consistent with the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“40%, 20%, and 23% of respondents from high, medium, and low-income countries were concerned about the AV technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of economic conditions on public acceptance of AVs
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [205] Bazilinskyy, P., et al.: An international crowdsourcing study into people’s statements on fully automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2534–2542 (2015) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that respondents from high-income countries were more likely to express negative views about automated driving than those from low-income countries. But the indexed text does not give the claimed 40%, 20%, and 23% breakdown; its 23% figure refers to negative comments across all three income groups, not the low-income group. Figure 2’s caption describes percentages by income group, but does not state their values. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“47% of truck drivers choose their job because of driving pleasure.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Demographics of the sample section describes a survey of adults in Ireland, and §4.6 reports reasons for purchasing autonomous vehicles. Searches for Richardson, truck drivers, driving pleasure, and 47% found no passage addressing why truck drivers chose their jobs. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Higher education people are more aware of AVs’ benefits and concerns and generally skeptical [34].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of educational level on AVs’ acceptance
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [34] Rezaei, A., Caulfield, B.: Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility. Trav. Behav. Soc. 21, 235–246 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.07.002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4.1 reports that few respondents believed AVs would operate more safely and securely than human drivers, supporting general skepticism. It does not establish that people with higher education are more aware of AV benefits and concerns or are more skeptical than others; searches for education and educated respondents found no such finding. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It must be mentioned that 33% of the respondents stated that they do not know which mode they prefer because they are no familiar with the sharing service provided by AVs [199].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [199] Piao, J., McDonald, M., Hounsell, N., Graindorge, M., Graindorge, T., Malhene, N.: Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 14, 2168–2177 (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Car-pooling section (page unavailable) reports that about one fifth answered “Don’t know” when asked about the appeal of car-pooling benefits; it suggests lack of car-pooling experience as one possible reason. It does not report that 33% were unsure which travel mode they preferred or establish unfamiliarity with AV sharing services as the reason. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In 2016, the German government appointed a commission to understand and study this ethical dilemma [150]. In June 2017, the commission proposed its final report that provides twenty ethical rules that all AVs must follow [151].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [150] Gogoll, J., Müller, J.F.: Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Sci. Eng. Ethics 23, 681–700 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9806-x source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [151] Luetge, C.: The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philos. Technol. 30, 547–558 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0284-0 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant portion of people are not willing to pay more for AVs, and a small proportion is willing to pay much more.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, it is noteworthy that, although accessibility to the elderly and disabled was among the key benefits of AVs, little to no research focused on the disabled to understand their acceptance of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, surveys showed that older people are the most pessimistic towards AVs, which contradicts the theories that the elder will benefit more from the AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, people are highly concerned about AVs, and the level of fear of AVs increase with the increase in the number of accidents reported.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“rare studies focused on the perception or the opinion of truck drivers on AVs’ technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Additionally, 66% of respondents responded that they will not feel safe if the vehicle does not have a steering wheel, while only 14% have no problem if the vehicle does not have a steering wheel”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Zmud, J., Sener, I., Wagner, J.: Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas (2016)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This extensive coverage means that this news will be delivered to every person in the world and increase the level of fear of this technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Implications of AVs’ accidents on the public attitude and trust in AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The figure illustrates that across time, both positive and negative sentiment decreased following the crash. However, the drop in the positive sentiment was much larger than the decrease in negative sentiment [39].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Implications of AVs’ accidents on the public attitude and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39] Obrecht, M., Knez, M., Sinko, S.: Analysis of public opinion on autonomous vehicles. In: 12th International Conference on Challenges of Europe: Innovative Responses for Resilient Growth and Competitiveness at: Bol (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that the vehicle detected the pedestrian six seconds before the accident but did not brake until 1.3 s before hitting the fatal accident [26].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] Walker, A.: Are self-driving cars safe for our cities? (2020). https://www.curbed.com/2016/9/21/12991696/driverless-cars-safety-pros-cons
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Koopman and Wagner showed that safety of AVs is a complex process that requires coordination between different disciplines starting from machine learning, to sensor development, to testing AVs, and developing a standard testing process [23].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] Koopman, P., Wagner, M.: Autonomous vehicle safety: an interdisciplinary challenge. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 9, 90–96 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2016.2583491 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In 2015, Sivak and Schoettle found that there are many factors which contribute to accidents and the contribution of these factors will change with the introduction of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21] Sivak, M., Schoettle, B.: Road safety with self-driving vehicles: general limitations and road sharing with conventional vehicles (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, 2015-01) (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“First, there is no standard for testing AVs. For example, the use of the driving test will not be feasible for AVs, because this test will make sure that AVs have the ability to perform the basic driving tasks, while the behavior of AVs in different or complex conditions will not be tested [24].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Kalra, N.: Challenges and approaches to realizing autonomous vehicle safety. In: Presented to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection United States House of Representatives. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2017) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence is a very complex process that requires massive data to train the vehicle to make the right decision [104].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [104] Viatech. Why sensor fusion is the key to self-driving cars. Viatech (2019). https://www.viatech.com/en/2019/10/why-sensor-fusion-is-the-key-to-self-driving-cars/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Additionally, the complexity of the system and sensors will increase the vehicular failure rates which might increase the rate of accidents.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21] Sivak, M., Schoettle, B.: Road safety with self-driving vehicles: general limitations and road sharing with conventional vehicles (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, 2015-01) (2015).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“41% of the respondents stated that they will not consider AVs because of the lack of trust in the technology, 24% stated they will not consider AVs because of their concerns about the safety of this new system, and 22% will not consider AVs because of the high costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32] Casley, L., Jardim, A., Quartulli, A.: A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars Interactive Qualifying Project. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester (2014)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Additionally, this accident reduced the level of trust in the technology especially for people with positive attitude that they stopped tweeting about the positives of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Implications of AVs’ accidents on the public attitude and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39] Obrecht, M., Knez, M., Sinko, S.: Analysis of public opinion on autonomous vehicles. In: 12th International Conference on Challenges of Europe: Innovative Responses for Resilient Growth and Competitiveness at: Bol (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These results indicate that a large proportion of the positive tweets disappeared (almost half), while the negative tweets almost remain the same as before the accident, which means that a large number of people who were positive towards AVs before the accident might became worried about the technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Implications of AVs’ accidents on the public attitude and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39] Obrecht, M., Knez, M., Sinko, S.: Analysis of public opinion on autonomous vehicles. In: 12th International Conference on Challenges of Europe: Innovative Responses for Resilient Growth and Competitiveness at: Bol (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Second, there is no agreement on the definition of the safety of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25] Nishimoto, A.: All new tesla models will feature level 5-capable autopilot hardware (2016). https://www.motortrend.com/news/new-tesla-models-will-feature-level-5-capable-autopilot-hardware/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, sensor fusion support AVs to fuse various information from the sensor suite, instead of relying on a single and unreliable sensor. Also, sensor fusion provides redundancy as the same areas are covered by different types of sensors to support the vehicle decision [103–107].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [103] Burke, K.: How does a self-driving car see? Camera, radar and lidar sensors give autonomous vehicles superhuman vision. Nvidia (2019). https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2019/04/15/how-does-a-self-driving-car-see/
- Not matchedcites [104] Viatech. Why sensor fusion is the key to self-driving cars. Viatech (2019). https://www.viatech.com/en/2019/10/why-sensor-fusion-is-the-key-to-self-driving-cars/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [105] Kozma, P.: Why sensor fusion is critical for self-driving cars (2019). https://aimotive.com/blog/content/7321
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [106] Mitchell, H.B.: Multi-sensor data fusion: an introduction. Springer, Berlin (2007) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [107] Hall, D.L., et al.: Handbook of multisensory data fusion. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2001) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“AVs’ navigation is a difficult task because of a variety of obstacles such as the weather conditions [108]. These obstacles create uncertainty when the vehicle is unable to gain sufficient information from the surrounding environment, which makes it difficult for the vehicle to precisely follow a pre-defined path [109].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [108] Parhi, D.R., Singh, M.K.: Navigational strategies of mobile robots: a review. Int. J. Autom. Control 3(2/3), 114–134 (2009) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [109] Mohamed, A., Ren, J., El-Gindy, M., Lang, H., Ouda, A.N.: Literature survey for autonomous vehicles: sensor fusion, computer vision, system identification and fault tolerance. Int. J. Autom. Control 12(4), 555–581 (2018) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The analysis shows that the word “crash” does not appear before the accident, but it becomes a common word after the accident.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Implications of AVs’ accidents on the public attitude and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39] Obrecht, M., Knez, M., Sinko, S.: Analysis of public opinion on autonomous vehicles. In: 12th International Conference on Challenges of Europe: Innovative Responses for Resilient Growth and Competitiveness at: Bol (2017)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, safety studies show that AVs’ safety is extremely complex and still in the early stages.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Results show that 44% of the respondents do not believe that AVs are safer than a normal human driver, while 25% believe AVs are safer.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Zmud, J., Sener, I., Wagner, J.: Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas (2016)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Results show that only 13% will adapt AVs once they are in the market, and 87% of the respondents will wait to see the opinion of the early adaptors [33].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Zmud, J., Sener, I., Wagner, J.: Consumer Acceptance and Travel Behavior Impacts of Automated Vehicles. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas (2016)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Probably, the rationality behind this is that people do not trust new technologies at early stages especially if these technologies will affect their own safety and lives.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Implications of AVs’ safety on the social acceptance > Public perception of AVs’ safety and trust in AVs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“While some people think that AVs must be allowed once they provide a higher safety level than human driving, others will not trust machines and will not accept the idea of putting their lives in the hands of machines [25].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs’ safety
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25] Nishimoto, A.: All new tesla models will feature level 5-capable autopilot hardware (2016). https://www.motortrend.com/news/new-tesla-models-will-feature-level-5-capable-autopilot-hardware/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The most common methods used for sensor fault detection are the analytical methods or the model-based models that require mathematical modeling of the system, inputs, and outputs in order to produce the detected features.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [132] Meskin, N., Khorasani, K.: Fault detection and isolation: multi-vehicle unmanned systems. Springer, New York (2011) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, for the nonlinear dynamic models, other methods are used such as the modified Kalman filter [115].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [115] Welch, G., Bishop, G.: Course 8: an Introduction to the Kalman filter’, ACM SIGGRAPH (2001)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown above, both the rational and AI approaches have their own shortcomings.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The main drawback of this method is that it needs analytical or empirical model of a particular sensor to compute the likelihood function and ascertain prior distribution values.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [111] Brown, C., Durrant-Whyte, H., Leonard, J., Rao, B., Steer, B.: Distributed data fusion using Kalman filtering: a robotics application. In: Data Fusion in Robotics and Machine Intelligence, San Diego, CA, pp. 267–309 (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Summarizing the results of the previous studies gives a similarly mixed picture as in the ethicists’ discussions. There are findings in which respondents call a utilitarian approach for good, but also a selfish attitude can be found. Additionally, even those who in principle consider the utilitarian approach, are apparently not sure whether they want to sit in a car that sacrifices their lives to”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach is based on the iterative implementation of Monte Carlo technique [120] in order to solve the filtering problem. This approach builds upon the density function using several random samples called particles.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [120] Crisan, D., Doucet, A.: A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practitioners’. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 50(3), 736–746 (2002) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, a hybrid approach might represent a better solution.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the process of AVs’ navigation is a complex process that requires coordination between different disciplines starting from machine learning, to sensor development, to testing AVs, and developing a standard testing process.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any FTC system should have the ability to deal with many challenges such as the fast response time to avoid the degradation of the system performance to an undesired level, and failure coverage to allow the system to deal with as many failures as possible.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This is not only about ethics but also about the social acceptance of AVs that has a significant influence on the market penetration of AVs. Ethics and expectations are always challenging each other to all automotive stakeholders, so results can never satisfy everyone [143].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [143] Lin, P.: The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic (2013)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the academic perspective, previous studies can be categorized into one of three categories: rational approaches, artificial approaches, and hybrid rational and artificial intelligence approaches.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown above, the public acceptance of AVs is significantly influenced by the perceived level of safety of AVs. If the vehicles are not safe, they are significantly less desirable, regardless of their benefits. The perceived safety, or rather the perceived lack of safety of AVs, is what will truly sway the opinions of potential buyers.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this problem can be avoided by increasing the number of data points (N) used as the variance of the sample equals the variance of the original data at the limit .”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For AVs, the utility can be defined as damage cost.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The previous results indicate a social dilemma as people generally agree on what should be done for the greater good of everyone, but it is in everybody’s self-interest not to do it themselves.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find ourselves in a situation that is new to the world as vehicles will be able to make decisions on who should live and who should die with no real-time human supervision. This problem is not limited to a niche market but will affect everyday transportation and all road users, no matter whether they drive, walk, or ride a bike.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > The ethical dilemma and social challenge
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After identifying the error, two methods are used for the fault recovery: direct redundancy or analytical redundancy. In the direct redundancy, an additional module is employed to replace the faulty one. However, the analytical redundancy implies to utilize the working modules to complete the tasks which failed [135].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [135] Aldridge, H.A.: Robot position sensor fault tolerance. Ph.D. 9713717, Carnegie Mellon University, United States—Pennsylvania (1996)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While fault preventions and fault removal focus on the avoidance or removal of faults, fault forecasting and fault tolerance deal with focus on avoiding the system failure with the existence of faults to avoid unplanned behaviors [131].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [131] Isermann, R.: Fault-Diagnosis Applications: Model-Based Condition Monitoring: Actuators, Drives, Machinery, Plants, Sensors, and Fault-Tolerant Systems. Springer, Berlin (2011) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Centralized architectures employ one global filter to process the measurements of all the local sensors. This architecture can detect hard sensor failures through the detection of residuals. However, the single centralized filter architecture is not powerful enough to detect soft sensor failures.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [133] Carlson, N.A.: Federated filter for fault-tolerant integrated navigation systems. In: Position Location and Navigation Symposium, 1988. Record. Navigation into the 21st Century. IEEE PLANS '88. IEEE, pp. 110–119 (1988) source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [134] Lawrence, Jr., P.J., Berarducci, M.P.: Comparison of federated and centralized Kalman filters with fault detection considerations. In: Position Location and Navigation Symposium, 1994. IEEE, pp. 703–710 (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These laws can be translated for the case of AVs as follows [163]:An AV should not collide with a pedestrian or a cyclist.An AV should not collide with another vehicle unless this collision would not conflict with the first law.An AV should not collide with any other object in the environment unless avoiding such a collision does not conflict with the first and second laws.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [163] Wang, H., Khajepour, A., Cao, D., Liu, T.: Ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles: challenges and research progress. In: IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2019.2953556. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The process of formulating the ethical rules in AVs faces two main challenges. The first one is how to define the value of the society across different scenarios. The second challenge is how to translate the set of ethical rules into a language that the vehicle can understand independently from any human intervention.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In case the system can be represented as a linear model and the error can be represented as a Gaussian noise, the filters can estimate the optimal statistical estimations [114].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [114] Luo, R.C., Kay, M.G.: Data fusion and sensor integration: state-of-the-art 1990s. In: Abidi, M., Gonzalez, R. (eds.) Data Fusion in Robotics and Machine Intelligence, pp. 7–135. Academic Press, San Diego (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“There are two sources of fault that might occur in AVs as follows: hardware defect, or software imperfections. In order of appearance, faults can be divided into two categories hard or soft faults.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [129] Realpe, M., Vintimilla, B.X., Vlacic, L.: A fault tolerant perception system for autonomous vehicles. In: 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Chengdu, pp. 6531–6536 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ChiCC.2016.7554385 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the major drawback of this approach is the computation of the Jacobians which is extremely expensive, but some research has been made on this area to reduce the computational costs such as applying linearization, but this approach may introduce new errors in the filter and thus makes it more unstable [109].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [109] Mohamed, A., Ren, J., El-Gindy, M., Lang, H., Ouda, A.N.: Literature survey for autonomous vehicles: sensor fusion, computer vision, system identification and fault tolerance. Int. J. Autom. Control 12(4), 555–581 (2018) source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In complex systems, it is not possible to achieve a fault-free system, so the fault forecasting or fault tolerance approaches are the preferred approaches. For AVs, the fault tolerance approach is the most common approach followed [129].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Fault tolerance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [129] Realpe, M., Vintimilla, B.X., Vlacic, L.: A fault tolerant perception system for autonomous vehicles. In: 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Chengdu, pp. 6531–6536 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ChiCC.2016.7554385 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, this method might underestimate the distribution variance, which might lead to data biases.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Synopsis on the technological realization of AVs (sensor fusion, computer vision, and fault tolerance) > Sensor fusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [111] Brown, C., Durrant-Whyte, H., Leonard, J., Rao, B., Steer, B.: Distributed data fusion using Kalman filtering: a robotics application. In: Data Fusion in Robotics and Machine Intelligence, San Diego, CA, pp. 267–309 (1992)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This approach has the potential to formulae the ethical decision making as an optimization problem [165] that maximizes the overall utility.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [165] Driver, J.: The history of utilitarianism (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rational approach can be divided into two subcategories: deontological, and consequentialism. The deontological rules force the vehicle to follow a set of principles, while the consequentialism approach is an optimization approach that maximizes the overall benefits of the system.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Results show that 58% of respondents could correctly differentiate between different events in case of visible alert, 83% in case of audible alert, and 95% in the case of visible and audible alerts. Additionally, respondents need an average response time of 5–9 s in order to take control back depending on the alert method [193].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [193] Sirkin, D., Martelaro, N., Johns, M., Ju, W.: Toward measurement of situation awareness in autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results show how liability can influence the public attitude towards AVs and that a large proportion of respondents might not adopt AVs for policy reasons.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This complexity requires specific regulations to force people and manufacturers to comply with prespecified safety procedures such as forcing people to keep their hands on the steering wheels and forcing manufacturers to provide the appropriate alert to hand over the vehicle control safely.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To quote Hancock’s Automation Paradox “if you build systems where people are rarely required to respond, they will rarely respond when required” [190].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [190] Hancock, P.A.: Automation: how much is too much? 2014. Ergonomics 57(3), 449–454 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.816375 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Behavioral data from Miller, et al. study that was conducted using a simulator show significant differences in time to initiate evasive action across conditions. Additionally, participants in fully AVs show greater comfort and trust in the system than partially AVs. Thus, the required time for drivers in fully AVs to take control increases [192].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [192] Miller, D., Sun, A., Ju, W.: Situation awareness with different levels of automation. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), San Diego, CA, pp. 688–693 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2014.6973989 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As AVs are in the initial state, the correct solution might be the driver liability.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the introduction of the AVs might change regulations. For example, a specific driving license might be required, or the insurance requirements might change.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the mentioned liability issue is expected to influence the public acceptance of AVs, rare studies endeavored to understand this phenomenon and how it impacts the public acceptance.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, manufacturer liability might be limited if the manufacturer did everything to make the vehicles' owners aware of the defect and offer to remove it, but the owner did not take any action.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To sum up, in this hybrid approach, the rule system from the rational approach remains in place as boundary requirements, and the AI method focuses on situations not covered by the rational ones [163].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [163] Wang, H., Khajepour, A., Cao, D., Liu, T.: Ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles: challenges and research progress. In: IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2019.2953556. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, the Vienna convention (1968) that was agreed by 74 countries states that drivers are always responsible for controlling the vehicle [30].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191025170813.htm source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They also stated that the AVs must be programmed to reduce the damage [30].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191025170813.htm source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the manufacturer will be liable for errors in the final product (product liability).”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Additionally, 71% of the respondents believe that AVs’ manufacturers should be the liable agency in case of accident, while 22% believe that insurance companies should be liable [198].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Richardson, N., et al.: Assessing Truck Drivers’ and Fleet Managers’ Opinions Towards Highly Automated Driving. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, by definition, levels 2 and 3 of AVs require transitions between human driving and autonomous driving.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The German Ethical Guidelines (2017) stated that AVs must give priority to human life over animals or things [151].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [151] Luetge, C.: The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philos. Technol. 30, 547–558 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0284-0 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the general liability laws, AV’s occupant will not be responsible for the damage as he or she is not controlling the car similar to a bus passenger who is not liable in the case of collision.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in the future with high penetration of AVs, it is expected that the driver liability will be mitigated.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This hybrid approach requires sophisticated software that does not exist yet”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Ethical dilemma and implications on the public behavior and acceptance > Programming of the ethical decision making in autonomous vehicles
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, in 2016, a team of researchers hacked a Tesla car and took control of the car for almost 12 miles. The Chinese researchers were able to control every electronic feature of the vehicle remotely such as brakes and car locking. The attack requires the car to be connected to a malicious Wi-Fi system set by the team and the attack can be done only if the car browser is opened. Tesla stated”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201] Solon, O.: Team of hackers take remote control of Tesla Model S from 12 miles away. The Guardian (2016). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/20/tesla-model-s-chinese-hack-remote-control-brakes
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Poor situational awareness contributes to vehicle crashes as SA is a critical factor in drivers’ ability in making decisions [185–187].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [185] Shinar, D.: Psychology on the road: the human factor in traffic safety. Wiley, New York (1978)
- Not matchedcites [186] Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonal, S.T., Shinar, D., Hume, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Stansifer, R.L., Catellan, N.J.: Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents: Final report volume 1: Causal factor tabulations and assessments. Institute for research in public safety (DOT publication No. DOT HS-805 085). Indiana University, Bloomington (1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [187] Gugerty, L.J.: Situation awareness during driving: explicit and implicit knowledge in dynamic spatial memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 3(1), 42–66 (1997) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, establishing a safe transition from the autonomous system to the human-driven system increase the complexity of the system.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Criminal liability and situational awareness dilemma
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this scenario, the driver will be liable in case the vehicle provided him with sufficient warnings to take manual control and take an action to avoid collisions and with sufficient time to control.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Liability and regulations for AVs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Results show that almost 60% of the respondents believe they must not be liable in case of accident, while only 14% believe they should be liable.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Richardson, N., et al.: Assessing Truck Drivers’ and Fleet Managers’ Opinions Towards Highly Automated Driving. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results show that safety is a top priority for people and illustrate that people will not adopt AVs until they make sure that this new technology is safe.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future legislations must limit the liability of passengers in case of inattentive, especially the main benefit of AVs is to allow passengers to be involved in other activities during their trips.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, results showed that AVs are more attractive to people who make long trips and to people who live in countries that register high accident rates [36].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Willingness to pay
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36] Schoettle, B., Sivak, M.: Motorists' preferences for different levels of vehicle automation (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until these concerns are met, the price of the vehicle is inconsequential to the purchase of the vehicle.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“On the other hand, Richardson and Davies created an online survey in UK with 199 respondents then compared the results with a similar survey concluded earlier in 2014 to understand the change in public opinion over time.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204] Richardson, E., Davies, P.: The changing public's perception of self-driving cars (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 199- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Consequently, Wintersberger et al. used a driving simulator to study the user acceptance with 48 participants riding an AV with positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), affect grid [two-dimensional grid measuring pleasure against sleepiness to arousal], interviews. and questionnaires that were conducted twice; one before and another after the trip to analyze the participants’ emotions.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [203] Wintersberger, P., et al.: Automated driving system, male, or female driver. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications—Automotive'UI 16, pp. 51–58 (2016) source
plainn = 48- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although truck drivers and freight industry are expected to get affected significantly with the introduction of AVs, rare studies focused on the perception of truck drivers and fleet operators.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results of this survey comply with the results from Fig. 3 as in 2014 there were no AVs available and there were no accidents, so people were optimistic about AVs, however, with time AVs’ accidents are reported and people became more concerned and less positive towards AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, there is a critical issue in the liability between human drivers and manufacturers that will be raised soon.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only when the cars have been made safe and the laws surrounding them made legally satisfactory the people will judge the cost of these cars to be affordable or not.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Actually, a recent study by Gittleman and Monaco revealed that although the risk on truck drivers is real, the projections touted are exaggerated because companies will always need drivers because not all the driver’s tasks can be automated.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [206] Gittleman, M., Monaco, K.: Truck-driving jobs: are they headed for rapid elimination? ILR Rev. 73(1), 3–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919858079 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, sensors can detect safety problems, but they cannot do anything about them, so fixing these problems requires human interaction [206].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Truck drivers and fleet operators perception of AVs
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [206] Gittleman, M., Monaco, K.: Truck-driving jobs: are they headed for rapid elimination? ILR Rev. 73(1), 3–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919858079 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Abraham et al., found that 40% of the 25–34 years old participants prefer AVs, while only 12% for 65–74 years old consider making trips in AVs [207].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Precepting of AVs for different age groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [207] Abraham, H., et al.: Autonomous vehicles and alternatives to driving: trust, preferences, and effects of age. In: Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting (2017).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although more people became more aware of AVs in 2017, the percentage of respondents with positive opinions dropped by 25% in the 3 years [204].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Impact of previous experience (awareness)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204] Richardson, E., Davies, P.: The changing public's perception of self-driving cars (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Unfortunately, in general, governments are following the principle of blame avoidance because of the safety concerns, which hinder the technology and increase the costs [202].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Liability and regulations, and implications on public acceptance > Impact of liability on the public acceptance
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [202] Feigenbaum, B.: Autonomous vehicles: a Guide for policy makers. Reason foundation (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As discussed in the previous sections, there are many factors that influence the public acceptance of AVs’ technology and might push people from adopting this technology.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“according to the National Automobile Dealers Association, Americans spend an average of 30,000 $ for buying a new car.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs might be the future alternative for the public transportation service.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Richardson and Davies: females are more concerned about the risks of AVs than males, with an average 3/5 of the males believe that AVs will increase the safety compared with 2.37/5 of the females [204].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Perception of males and females
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204] Richardson, E., Davies, P.: The changing public's perception of self-driving cars (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is expected that this crisis will accelerate the introduction of AVs as AVs can be useful in emergencies and pandemics as follows:”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Results showed that operating costs of private AVs will be cheaper than traditional taxis but higher than the traditional transit and traditional vehicles.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [216] Litman, T.: Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions, implications for transport planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2020).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In Ontario, Canada, the province asked the TTC to consider replacing some of their bus routes with microtransit service through partnerships with companies like Uber [223].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [223] Spurr. As condition of COVID-19 bailout, Ontario asks TTC and others to consider private ‘microtransit’ in place of little-used bus routes, The star (2020). https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/08/17/as-condition-of-covid-19-bailout-ontario-asks-ttc-and-others-to-consider-private-microtransit-in-place-of-little-used-bus-routes.html
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the future, during pandemics, AVs can be used as a transportation mean to transport people to grocery stores, healthcare, and pharmacies, while maintaining isolation and sterilization [226, 227].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [226] Tchir, J.: Could physical distancing reignite our excitement for autonomous driving? The globe and mail (2020). https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-could-social-distancing-reignite-our-excitement-for-autonomous-driving/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [227] Grosbard, E.: Autonomous vehicles could be crucial in responding to future pandemics. The robot report (2020). https://www.therobotreport.com/autonomous-vehicles-vital-role-solving-future-pandemics/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Two simulation models for Babcock Ranch, Florida, USA and Manhattan, New York, USA showed radically low trip cost with an average waiting time less than two minutes.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [224] Burns, L., Jordan, W., Scarborough, B.: Transforming Personal Mobility. The Earth Institute, Columbia University (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Autonomous taxis can circumvent this cost issue.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, it is expected that most of the surface will be stainless steel and plastic to minimize the cleaning and vandalism costs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More importantly, AVs could replace public transportation in pandemics which is a main source for the spread of diseases.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, it was found that ridership on bus and rail systems in the USA had dropped by 74% in New York, 79% in Washington, D.C., and 83% in Boston. In Canada, transit ridership dropped by 80% in Toronto and 82% in Montréal [220].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [220] How coronavirus is disrupting public transit (2020). https://transitapp.com/coronavirus
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, passengers might encounter additional delays because of the pickup and drop of events.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This cost reduction guarantees equity and affordability of this service to everyone.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While shared AVs have the potential to reduce the operating costs, it cannot provide high service quality.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“that some of the city officials requested the governor to shut down the New York’s transit system [222].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [222] Hallum, M.: Queens Councilman’s call to shut down mass transit brushed aside by MTA, union (2020). https://www.amny.com/transit/queens-councilmans-call-to-shut-down-mass-transit-brushed-aside-by-mta-union/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For the Babcock Ranch case, the mobility service cost would be less than 3$ per day per person or 1$ per trip [224].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [224] Burns, L., Jordan, W., Scarborough, B.: Transforming Personal Mobility. The Earth Institute, Columbia University (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shared AVs will be similar to public transportation modes where people share their private space, encounter previous occupants’ garbage, and there will be no driver to help passengers.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Public acceptance and perception of the AV technology > Public preference of different modes of AVs (public vs. private) and the cost of technology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The level of fear of public transit service increases significantly after this pandemic as many people blame subways and buses for coronavirus outbreaks [219].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [219] Sadik-Khan, J., Solomonow, S.: Fear of public transit got ahead of the evidence. The Atlantic (2020). https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/fear-transit-bad-cities/612979/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“China used autonomous vans for food and medical supplies delivery and sanitize streets [227].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [227] Grosbard, E.: Autonomous vehicles could be crucial in responding to future pandemics. The robot report (2020). https://www.therobotreport.com/autonomous-vehicles-vital-role-solving-future-pandemics/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“70% of the respondents agree that COVID-19 has changed how cities should be planned in the future.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, it must be mentioned that previous experience might affect the public acceptance negatively as discussed in Richardson and Davies (2018) study [204] because the public acceptance is affected by other factors such as AVs’ accidents.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [204] Richardson, E., Davies, P.: The changing public's perception of self-driving cars (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While AVs have the potential to increase traffic safety due to the avoidance of the human error, vehicular failure might replace the human error due to many reasons such as the variety of situations or scenarios AVs might be involved in and the variety of the environmental conditions.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this segment cannot pay much for this technology so the use of shared AVs might be a good and affordable solution.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Motional Consumer Mobility Report surveyed 1,003 U.S. consumers in the mid of July to find public enthusiasm toward driverless vehicles is generally growing [232].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While sensors can detect safety problems, they cannot do anything about them, so fixing these problems requires some human interaction [206].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [206] Gittleman, M., Monaco, K.: Truck-driving jobs: are they headed for rapid elimination? ILR Rev. 73(1), 3–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919858079 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These reasons make the process of training AVs a highly sophisticated process that requires a high level of cooperation and coordination between multiple disciplines from machine learning, to sensor development, to AVs’ testing and developing a standard testing process”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“60% of the respondents are reconsidering their transportation choices to accommodate social distancing.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, it is expected that this pandemic will have a significant influence on the public acceptance of AVs and people might become more optimistic towards AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main issue is that unlike human drivers, AVs’ decision on how to crash is pre-defined by a programmer.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs can be used to transport people while maintaining isolation and sterilization.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, this pandemic has caused conversations around autonomous driving systems to happen more broadly than before, which has opened consumers' eyes to the benefits of AVs [232].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such accidents might harm the safety reputation of AVs and associate AVs with accidents in minds of the public which might discourage people from traveling in AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until these concerns are met, the price of the vehicle is inconsequential to the purchase of the vehicle.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the previous discussion, and the mentioned use cases above have proven the worth of autonomous vehicles that makes AVs a major tool in the fight against pandemics.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although AVs might increase safety and reduce collisions, such news put the public against AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gittleman and Monaco (2020) revealed that although the risk on truck drivers is real, the projections touted are exaggerated because companies will always need drivers as some of the driver tasks cannot be automated.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [206] Gittleman, M., Monaco, K.: Truck-driving jobs: are they headed for rapid elimination? ILR Rev. 73(1), 3–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919858079 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While willingness to pay is a key factor for the success of any new technology, especially in the initial state where the cost of the new technology is high”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused conversations around autonomous driving systems to happen more broadly than before, which has opened consumers' eyes to the benefits of AVs and in turn has increased the public enthusiasm towards AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs faces an ethical dilemma similar to the famous trolley paradox, however, the paradox will be more frequent for the case of AVs.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, the first AV fatal accident that involved Tesla’s AV in 2016 had a significant impact on public acceptance of AVs and the level of interest in the AVs declined greatly after the accident that Tesla’s share declined 1% in the day of the accident [48].”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48] McFarland, M.: Google's self-driving car takes some blame for a crash. The Sydney morning herald (2016). https://www.smh.com.au/technology/googles-selfdriving-car-takes-some-blame-for-a-crash-20160301-gn71z8.html
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“82% believe that AVs are the way to the future.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“70% of respondents admit that the risk of infection is a real concern impacting their transportation decisions.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, AVs can be used for the delivery of food and medical supplies.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The perceived safety, or rather the perceived lack of safety of autonomous cars, is what will truly sway the opinions of potential buyers.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“66% of the respondents will consider using AVs regularly.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs have the potential to help people in their fights against pandemics.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AVs are expected to increase the accessibility for elders and the disabled.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the elders are considered one of the early adaptors of AVs as AVs will increase their accessibility.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only when the cars have been made safe and the laws surrounding them made legally satisfactory the people will judge the cost of these cars to be affordable or not.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Final remarks and recommendations for the future
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a critical issue in the liability between human driving and manufacturer that will be raised soon.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The legal sector is following the development of AVs instead of taking the lead.
In the paper
“83% of the respondents agree that access to safe, clean transportation is a public health issue.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While truck drivers are expected to suffer from job loss with the introduction of AVs”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the use of AVs is still uncertain, as well as it needs a long time in terms of the regulatory process”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“86% of the respondent will travel in an AV if they are given the opportunity.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > AVs in pandemics and implications on the public attitude towards AVs
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [232] Musulin, K.: Public AV enthusiasm growing amid pandemic: survey. Smart cities Dive (2020). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/public-av-enthusiasm-growing-amid-pandemic-survey/585848/
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
AV accuracy cannot be achieved relying on a single sensor.
“this accuracy cannot be achieved relying on a single sensor.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AV image processing algorithms are extremely complex and require onboard power and lightweight, low-consumption hardware.
“The image processing algorithms required for an AV to operate safely are extremely complex. Additionally, AVs should be equipped with the required power to process images on-board so that the vehicle can react to the surrounding world ad avoid objects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People will not use a vehicle that might sacrifice themselves in a life-or-death dilemma.
“as people will not use a vehicle that might sacrifice themselves in a life-or-death dilemma.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
It is not possible to exempt the driver from liability at the moment.
“As a result, it is possible to assume that it is not possible to exempt the driver from the liability at the moment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Public acceptance of autonomous vehicles is necessary for their adoption.
“As discussed in the previous sections, there are many factors that influence the public acceptance of AVs’ technology and might push people from adopting this technology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Less attention has been paid to public acceptance and perception of AVs than to their implications, benefits, technological development, and challenges.
“While AVs are often discussed in regard to their implications, benefits, technological development, and technological challenges, less attention has been paid to the public acceptance and perception of AVs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Highly or fully autonomous and connected vehicles are not currently available on the market.
“because highly or fully autonomous and connected vehicles are not currently available on the market”
The paper relies on this without support.
Previous survey respondents' answers rely on their imagination of how AVs will operate in the future.
“results of the previous surveys rely on the imagination of the respondents regarding the operation of AVs in the future”
The paper relies on this without support.
The legal sector is following the development of AVs instead of taking the lead.
“Apparently, the legal sector is following the development of AVs instead of taking the lead.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Public dissatisfaction with responses to the black box problem may undermine the adoption of AI/ML technologies, especially when these technologies cause harm, invade privacy, or produce biased claims and results [60, 85, 134, 175].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [175]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Introduction
“there are 5 levels of AVs’ functionality. Level 0: no automation and the driver perform all the driving tasks.”
§ Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review > Introduction
“level 5: full automation which means that the vehicle can take control of the vehicle under all conditions [5].”
Citations
Cites
Artificial intelligence: a modern approach
Kumar, D. A., Balasubramanian, S., Byeon, D. H., & Manerkar, P. G. V. (1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-1577 · Cited by 22,191
Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
Endsley, M. R. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779049543 · Cited by 8,875
Bibliographical review on reconfigurable fault-tolerant control systems
Zhang, Y., & Jiang, J. (2008) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.03.008 · Cited by 2,652
National Conference of State Legislatures
Clink, K. (2011) · Reference Reviews · doi:10.1108/09504121111114072 · Cited by 2,310
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 · Cited by 1,859
The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654 · Cited by 1,527
The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation
Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779064555 · Cited by 1,406
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & de Winter, J. C. F. (2015) · Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014 · Cited by 1,383
Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective
Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016) · Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019 · Cited by 1,025
A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practitioners
Crisan, D., & Doucet, A. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/78.984773 · Cited by 919
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Othman, K.: Cities on the era of autonomous vehicles: a comparison between conventional vehicles and autonomous vehicles. 2020. In: The 3rd international conference on "Future of Smart Cities (FSC)" in collaboration with Xiamen University Malaysia, From 14th to 15th of November 2020
- Casley, L., Jardim, A., Quartulli, A.: A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars Interactive Qualifying Project. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester (2014)
- Obrecht, M., Knez, M., Sinko, S.: Analysis of public opinion on autonomous vehicles. In: 12th International Conference on Challenges of Europe: Innovative Responses for Resilient Growth and Competitiveness at: Bol (2017)
- Associated Press. Tesla driver killed in autopilot crash ‘was watching Harry Potter’. The New York Post (2017). https://nypost.com/2016/07/02/tesla-driver-killed-in-autopilot-crash-was-watching-harry-potter/
- Luo, R.C., Kay, M.G.: Data fusion and sensor integration: state-of-the-art 1990s. In: Abidi, M., Gonzalez, R. (eds.) Data Fusion in Robotics and Machine Intelligence, pp. 7–135. Academic Press, San Diego (1992)
- Welch, G., Bishop, G.: Course 8: an Introduction to the Kalman filter’, ACM SIGGRAPH (2001)
- Li, X., Xu, Q., Chan, C., Li, B., Chen, W., Song, X.: A hybrid intelligent multi-sensor positioning methodology for reliable vehicle navigation. Math. Probl. Eng. 176947, 13 (2015)
- Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I.: The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352(6293), 1573–1576 (2016) · DOI · Paper page
- Hohenberger, C.: Do ethical defaults cost lives? The effect of defaults on people's choice for ethical principles in automated cars. In: Presented at the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology. 2016. Brisbane, Australia, 2–5 August 2016
- Asimov, I. (ed.): Robot. Gnome Press, New York (1950)
- Asimov, I.: Runaround. Astound. Sci. Fict. 29(1), 94–103 (1942)
- Russell, S., Norvig, P. (eds.): Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Pearson Education, Malaysia (2016)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Resnik, D. B., & Hosseini, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00493-8 · Cited by 228
“Public dissatisfaction with responses to the black box problem may undermine the adoption of AI/ ML technologies, especially when these technologies cause harm, invade privacy, or produce biased claims and results [60, 85, 134, 175].”
Exploring the implications of autonomous vehicles: A comprehensive review
Othman, K. (2022) · Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · doi:10.1007/s41062-022-00763-6 · Cited by 180
“Based on the National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration, there are 5 levels of AV functionality: level 0: no automation, level 1: automation of one control function such as lane keep assist or autonomous control, level 2: automation of two control functions, level 3: limited self-driving but expect the…”
MethodResultSelf-citationDeployment of Autonomous Trains in Rail Transportation: Current Trends and Existing Challenges
Singh, P., Dulebenets, M. A., Pasha, J., González, E. D. R. S., Lau, Y., & Kampmann, R. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3091550 · Cited by 130
Internet of Things for sustainable railway transportation: Past, present, and future
Singh, P., Elmi, Z., Meriga, V. K., Pasha, J., & Dulebenets, M. A. (2022) · Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain · doi:10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100065 · Cited by 131
Kreps, S. E., George, J., Lushenko, P., & Rao, A. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288109 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Othman, K.
- Affiliations
- Cairo University (EG)
- Corresponding author
- Othman, Kareem
- ORCID
- Othman, Kareem
- Venue
- AI and Ethics
- Published
- 2021-02-26
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 355-387
- ISSN
- 2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
- 2730-5961
- PMC
- PMC7908960
- OpenAlex
- W3134026309
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 123
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 13
- FWCI
- 7.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- AI and Ethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, public acceptance, public perception, perceived safety, ethics of autonomous vehicles, liability, transport regulation, COVID-19 pandemic, technology adoption
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
