Cited by 72Transportation and Mobility InnovationsHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Examining public acceptance of autonomous mobility

Open access
Rezaei, Amin, Caulfield, Brian·2020·Travel Behaviour and Society

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.tbs.2020.07.002

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Richardson et al. conducted an online and in-paper survey for 69 truck drivers and 17 fleet managers.

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

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    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.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Schoettle and Sivak's US, UK, and Australia survey, 92% were highly concerned about AV safety in poor weather and about vehicle-pedestrian interaction.

    “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].”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Richardson et al. survey: 60% highly concerned about liability.

    “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].”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Surveys show high levels of concern regarding vehicle security: 90.9% [34], 54% [199], 68% [37].

    “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]”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Schoettle and Sivak found that males are more positive toward AV adoption than females.

    “Schoettle and Sivak, illustrated that males are more positive toward AVs’ adoption [34].”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]

    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)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [6]6. Biehl, A., Ermagun, A., Stathopoulos, A. Utilizing multi-stage behaviour change theory to model the process of bike share adoption, Transport Policy, 2019, Vol 77, pp 30-45
  2. [11]11. Delclòs-Alió, X., Marquet, O., Miralles-Guasch, C. Keeping track of time: A Smartphone- based analysis of travel time perception in a suburban environment. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2017, Vol 9, pp 1-9
  3. [41]41. Underwood, S. (2014). Automated Vehicles Forecast: Expert Forecast and Roadmap for Sustainable Transportation -Automated, Connected, and Electric Vehicle Systems. Vehicle Symposium Opinion Survey. Institute for Advanced Vehicle Systems, University of Michigan -Dearborn. Retrieved from http://graham.umich.edu/media/files/LC-IA- ACE-Roadmap-Expert-Forecast-Underwood.pdf.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rezaei, A., & Caulfield, B.
Affiliations
Trinity College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Caulfield, Brian
Venue
Travel Behaviour and Society
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
21
Pages
235-246
ISSN
2214-367X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3045556522
Cited by
72
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Travel Behaviour and Society (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, public acceptance, technology adoption, willingness to pay, privacy concerns, data recording, vehicle safety, liability, commuting

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