Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 698

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age

Hulse, Lynn M., Xie, Hui, Galea, Edwin R.·2018·Safety Science

Abstract

Abstract Fully automated self-driving cars, with expected benefits including improved road safety, are closer to becoming a reality. Thus, attention has turned to gauging public perceptions of these autonomous vehicles. To date, surveys have focused on the public as potential passengers of autonomous cars, overlooking other road users who would interact with them. Comparisons with perceptions of other existing vehicles are also lacking. This study surveyed almost 1000 participants on their perceptions, particularly with regards to safety and acceptance of autonomous vehicles. Overall, results revealed that autonomous cars were perceived as a “somewhat low risk“ form of transport and, while concerns existed, there was little opposition to the prospect of their use on public roads. However, compared to human-operated cars, autonomous cars were perceived differently depending on the road user perspective: more risky when a passenger yet less risky when a pedestrian. Autonomous cars were also perceived as more risky than existing autonomous trains. Gender, age and risk-taking had varied relationships with the perceived risk of different vehicle types and general attitudes towards autonomous cars. For instance, males and younger adults displayed greater acceptance. Whilst their adoption of this autonomous technology would seem societally beneficial – due to these groups’ greater propensity for taking road user risks, behaviours linked with poorer road safety – other results suggested it might be premature to draw conclusions on risk-taking and user acceptance. Future studies should therefore continue to investigate people’s perceptions from multiple perspectives, taking into account various road user viewpoints and individual characteristics.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 698

Metadata

Authors
Hulse, L. M., Xie, H., & Galea, E. R.
Venue
Safety Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
102
Pages
1-13
ISSN
0925-7535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2763318067
Cited by
698
References
3
FWCI
64.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001
The paper
Hulse, L. M., Xie, H., & Galea, E. R. (2018). Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.