Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review

In the paper

“Richardson et al. conducted an online and in paper survey for 69 truck drivers and 17 fleet managers [34].”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  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.

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  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)

  cites [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
• Supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

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
• Supported

  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)

  cites [138] Benosman, M.: A survey of some recent results on nonlinear fault tolerant control. Math. Probl. Eng. 2010, 1–25 (2009) source

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.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [143] Lin, P.: The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic (2013)
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [144] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/280360/
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  cites [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
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [164] Beavers, A.: 21 Moral machines and the threat of ethical nihilism. In: Robot Ethics: Ethical Social Implications Robotics, p. 333 (2011)

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).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

In the paper

“The platform gathered the opinion of millions of people from 233 countries with 40 million decisions in ten languages.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [152] http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
• Supported

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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]”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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
• Supported

  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)

  cites [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
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [180] Slone, S.: State Laws on Autonomous Vehicles. The council of state governments (2016). http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/content/state-laws-autonomous-vehicles

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

In the paper

“74% of truck drivers feel safe about their jobs.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

In the paper

“Majority of respondents were optimistic about the AV technology with 50% believe that AVs reduce energy and emissions.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [19] Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE). America’s workforce and the self-driving future: realizing productivity gains and spurring economic growth (2018)
• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)
• ?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

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].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  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)

  cites [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

In the paper

“40%, 20%, and 23% of respondents from high, medium, and low-income countries were concerned about the AV technology.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

In the paper

“47% of truck drivers choose their job because of driving pleasure.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  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)

  cites [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

In the paper

“Higher education people are more aware of AVs’ benefits and concerns and generally skeptical [34].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  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)

  cites [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

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].”

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

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

In the paper

“rare studies focused on the perception or the opinion of truck drivers on AVs’ technology.”

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”

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)

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.”

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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

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].”

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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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).

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].”

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

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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/

In the paper

“Additionally, the complexity of the system and sensors will increase the vehicular failure rates which might increase the rate of accidents.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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).

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [32] Casley, L., Jardim, A., Quartulli, A.: A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars Interactive Qualifying Project. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester (2014)

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

In the paper

“Second, there is no agreement on the definition of the safety of AVs.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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/

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].”

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 matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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/
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [105] Kozma, P.: Why sensor fusion is critical for self-driving cars (2019). https://aimotive.com/blog/content/7321
• ?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

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].”

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

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

In the paper

“Additionally, safety studies show that AVs’ safety is extremely complex and still in the early stages.”

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.”

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)

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].”

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)

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.”

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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/

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.”

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

In the paper

“However, for the nonlinear dynamic models, other methods are used such as the modified Kalman filter [115].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [115] Welch, G., Bishop, G.: Course 8: an Introduction to the Kalman filter’, ACM SIGGRAPH (2001)

In the paper

“As shown above, both the rational and AI approaches have their own shortcomings.”

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.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

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”

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.”

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

In the paper

“Thus, a hybrid approach might represent a better solution.”

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.”

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.”

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [143] Lin, P.: The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic (2013)

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.”

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.”

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 .”

In the paper

“For AVs, the utility can be defined as damage cost.”

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.”

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.”

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [135] Aldridge, H.A.: Robot position sensor fault tolerance. Ph.D. 9713717, Carnegie Mellon University, United States—Pennsylvania (1996)

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].”

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

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.”

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

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.”

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

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.”

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].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

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.”

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

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].”

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

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].”

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

In the paper

“Additionally, this method might underestimate the distribution variance, which might lead to data biases.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [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)

In the paper

“This approach has the potential to formulae the ethical decision making as an optimization problem [165] that maximizes the overall utility.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [165] Driver, J.: The history of utilitarianism (2009)

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.”

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].”

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

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.”

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.”

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].”

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

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].”

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

In the paper

“As AVs are in the initial state, the correct solution might be the driver liability.”

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.”

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.”