CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Transportation and Mobility InnovationsHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

A constructive role for social science in the development of automated vehicles

Open access
Cohen, Tom, Stilgoe, Jack, Stares, Sally, Akyelken, Nihan, Cavoli, Clemence, Day, Jennie, Dickinson, Janet, Fors, Vaike +9 more·2020·Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
DOI 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100133
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Automated vehicles (AVs) have the potential to cause profound shifts across a wide range of areas of human life, including economic structures, land use, lifestyles and personal well-being. Most current social science on AVs is narrowly framed. Research on public attitudes has focused on whether people are likely to accept and use AVs. We contend that failing to anticipate a wider range of profound social implications may have serious negative consequences, and that social scientists from a range of disciplinary perspectives can provide invaluable insights. Our conclusions are the product of a workshop in London held in 2018 to discuss the place of social science research in relation to the development of AVs. This paper summarises a core selection of our concerns, interests, theoretical and substantive points of reference and aspirations for a constructive role in this field of research and development.

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.trip.2020.100133

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Ride-sourcing AV systems and automated PT services are expected to play a key role in accessibility polarization.

    “Ride-sourcing AV systems and automated PT services are expected to play a key role in accessibility polarization (e.g., [17,38,39]).”

    From Implications of Autonomous Vehicles for Accessibility and Transport Equity: A Framework Based on Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [39]

    Section 2.3 (Distributional impacts; page not provided) warns that shared AV availability may differ between urban and rural areas and between rich and poor areas, supporting a potential role in unequal accessibility. It does not specifically establish that automated public-transport services will play a key role, and it frames the shared-AV outcome as a possibility rather than an expectation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Integration of ride-sourcing AVs with automated PT may also play a positive role in alleviation of existing inequities affecting users who cannot drive or own a car.

    “This suggests that the integration of ride-sourcing AVs with automated PT may also play a positive role in the alleviation of existing inequities affecting users who cannot drive or own a car [17,34,39].”

    From Implications of Autonomous Vehicles for Accessibility and Transport Equity: A Framework Based on Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [39]

    Section 2.3 (Distributional impacts; page not supplied) says AVs could in principle improve access for groups previously left out, including people affected by unequal access to private cars. It does not specifically say that integrating ride-sourcing AVs with automated public transport would alleviate those inequities; it cautions that shared AV availability and affordability may be uneven. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • These issues could be strongly exacerbated if combined with an ownership-based paradigm dominating transport sector also after vast deployment of AVs.

    “These issues could be strongly exacerbated if combined with an ownership-based paradigm dominating the transport sector also after a vast deployment of AVs (e.g., [35,39,57]).”

    From Implications of Autonomous Vehicles for Accessibility and Transport Equity: A Framework Based on Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [39]

    Section 2.3 (Distributional impacts; page unavailable) warns that AVs may exacerbate inequities associated with access to private cars. Section 2.7 (The environment; page unavailable) says ownership and shared-use scenarios could have substantially different environmental impacts. The paper does not establish that an ownership-dominated transport sector after widespread AV deployment would strongly exacerbate the issues. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Users not familiar with or cannot access online booking tools and payment methods are expected to experience substantial transport inequities in a future transport system based on AVs.

    “Finally, even the users who are not familiar with or cannot access online booking tools and payment methods are expected to experience substantial transport inequities in a future transport system based on AVs [14,39].”

    From Implications of Autonomous Vehicles for Accessibility and Transport Equity: A Framework Based on Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [39]

    Section 2.3 (Distributional impacts; page unavailable) asks whether AV systems will be accessible to people without a smartphone or bank account and warns that unequal access may be exacerbated. This supports the concern about exclusion, but it does not specifically discuss unfamiliarity with online booking or establish that substantial transport inequities are expected. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Abelson, R.P., 1981. Psychological status of the script concept. Am. Psychol. 36 (7), 715-729.
  2. Agrawal, A., Gans, J., Goldfarb, A., 2018. Prediction Machines: The Simple Economics of Ar- tificial Intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
  3. Akyelken, N., Banister, D., Givoni, M., 2018. The sustainability of shared mobility in London: the dilemma for governance. Sustainability 10 (2), 420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020420. · DOI
  4. Alessandrini, A., et al., 2015. Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities. Transp. Res. Proc. 5, 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.01.002 (SIDT Scien- tific Seminar 2013). · DOI
  5. Anable, J., 2005. "Complacent car addicts" or "aspiring environmentalists"? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp. Policy 12 (1), 65-78. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tranpol.2004.11.004. · DOI
  6. Auld, J., et al., 2018. Impact of privately-owned level 4 CAV technologies on travel demand and energy. Procedia Computer Science, pp. 914-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procs.2018.04.089. · DOI
  7. Bansal, P., Kockelman, K.M., Singh, A., 2016. Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: an Austin perspective. Transport. Res. C Emer. Technol. 67, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bauer, M.W., Gaskell, G., 1999. Towards a paradigm for research on social representations. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 29 (2), 163.
  9. Bergman, N., Schwanen, T., Sovacool, B.K., 2017. Imagined people, behaviour and future mo- bility: insights from visions of electric vehicles and car clubs in the United Kingdom. Transp. Policy 59, 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.016. · DOI
  10. Bissell, D., Birtchnell, T., Elliott, A., Hsu, E.L., 2020. Autonomous automobilities: the social impacts of driverless vehicles. Curr. Sociol. 68 (1), 116-134.
  11. Calvillo, N., et al., 2016. Test bed as urban epistemology. In: Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala, A., McFarlane, C. (Eds.), Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn?Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London; New York.
  12. Cohen, T., Cavoli, C., 2019. Automated vehicles: exploring possible consequences of govern- ment (non)intervention for congestion and accessibility. Transp. Rev. 39 (1), 129-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1524401. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Fagnant, D.J., Kockelman, K.M., 2018. Dynamic ride-sharing and fleet sizing for a system of shared autonomous vehicles in Austin, Texas. Transportation 45 (1), 143-158. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9729-z. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Fischhoff, B., et al., 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy. Sci. 9 (2), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00143739. · DOI
  15. Floress, K., et al., 2015. The role of social science in successfully implementing watershed management strategies. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 154 (1), 85-105. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2015.03189.x. · DOI
  16. Flyvbjerg, B., 2011. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. 13. printing. Translated by S. Sampson. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
  17. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., ... Hampel, J., 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nat. Biotechnol. 18 (9), 935-938.
  18. Graham, S., 2010. When infrastructures fail. In: Graham, S. (Ed.), Disrupted Cities: When In- frastructure Fails. Routledge, New York, pp. 1-26.
  19. Guerra, E., 2016. Planning for cars that drive themselves: metropolitan planning organiza- tions, regional transportation plans, and autonomous vehicles. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 36 (2), 210-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15613591. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Guston, D.H., 2004. Responsible innovation in the commercialized university. In: Stein, D.G. (Ed.), Buying in or Selling Out?: The Commericalization of the American Research Uni- versity. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J, pp. 161-174.
  21. Hildebrand, J.M., Sheller, M., 2018. Media ecologies of autonomous automobility. Transfers; Oxford 8 (1), 64-85 (doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.3167/ TRANS.2018.080106). · DOI
  22. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., 2003. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level gov- ernance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97 (2), 233-243. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003055403000649. · DOI
  23. Hunt, R., et al., 2017. In depth cost-effectiveness analysis of the identified measures and fea- tures regarding the way forward for EU vehicle safety: final report. Available at: http:// dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2873/748910, Accessed date: 14 October 2019. · DOI
  24. Hutchins, N., Hook, L., 2017. Technology acceptance model for safety critical autonomous transportation systems. 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC). 2017 IEEE/AIAA 36th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2017.8102010. · DOI
  25. Krompier, J., 2017. 'Safety first' the case for mandatory data sharing as a federal safety stan- dard for self-driving cars. J. Law Technol. Policy 2017 (2), 439-468.
  26. Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., Konrad, K., 2019. The tentative governance of emerging science and technology-a conceptual introduction. Res. Policy 48 (5), 1091-1097. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.006. · DOI
  27. Kullgren, A., Lie, A., Tingvall, C., 2010. Comparison between Euro NCAP test results and real- world crash data. Traffic Inj. Prev. 11 (6), 587-593. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15389588.2010.508804. · DOI
  28. Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., de Winter, J.C.F., 2015. Public opinion on automated driv- ing: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 32 (supplement C), 127-140. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lai, F., Carsten, O., Tate, F., 2012. How much benefit does intelligent speed adaptation de- liver? -an analysis of its potential contribution to safety and environment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 48, 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.011. · DOI
  30. Lezaun, J., Marres, N., Tironi, M., 2017. Experiments in participation. In: Felt, U., et al. (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, fourth edition The MIT Press, Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, pp. 195-221.
  31. Lie, A., Tingvall, C., 2002. How do Euro NCAP results correlate with real-life injury risks? A paired comparison study of car-to-car crashes. Traffic Inj. Prev. 3 (4), 288-293. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15389580214632. · DOI
  32. Liu, P., Yang, R., Xu, Z., 2019. How safe is safe enough for self-driving vehicles? Risk Anal. 39 (2), 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13116. · DOI
  33. Lucas, K., 2012. Transport and social exclusion: where are we now? Transp. Policy 20, 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013. · DOI
  34. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M.B., Wynne, B., 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public de- liberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci. Commun. 27 (2), 268-291. https://doi. org/10.1177/1075547005281531. · DOI
  35. Maassen, S., Dickel, S., Schneider, C. (Eds.), TechnoScience in Society, Sociology of Knowledge Yearbook. Kluwer, Nijmegen.
  36. Marsden, G., Reardon, L., 2018. Does governance matter? An international scenarios ex- ercise. In: Marsden, G., Reardon (Eds.), Governance of the Smart Mobility Transi- tion. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 139-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1- 78754-317-120181009. · DOI
  37. Mellström, U., 2004. Machines and masculine subjectivity: technology as an integral part of men's life experiences. Men Masculinities 6 (4), 368-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1097184X03260960. · DOI
  38. Noyman, A., Stibe, A., Larson, K., 2017. Roadmap for autonomous cities: sustainable transformation of urban spaces. Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA.
  39. Pangbourne, K., et al., 2018. The case of mobility as a service: a critical reflection on chal- lenges for urban transport and mobility governance. In: Marsden, G., Reardon, L. (Eds.), Governance of the Smart Mobility Transition, first edition Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK.
  40. Papa, E., Ferreira, A., 2018. Sustainable accessibility and the implementation of automated vehicles: identifying critical decisions. Urban Sci. 2 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ urbansci2010005. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: governing without government 1. Political Stud- ies 44 (4), 652-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x. · DOI
  42. Rodrik, D., 2014. When ideas trump interests: preferences, worldviews, and policy innova- tions. The J. Econ. Perspect.; Nashville 28 (1), 189-208 (doi: http://dx.doi.org. libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1257/jep.28.1.189). · DOI
  43. Starr, C., 1969. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165 (3899), 1232-1238. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.165.3899.1232. · DOI
  44. Stilgoe, J., 2019. Self-driving cars will take a while to get right. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1 (5), 202-203. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0046-z. · DOI
  45. Stirling, A., 2005. Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the so- cial appraisal of technology. In: Leach, M., Scoones, I., Wynne, B. (Eds.), Science and Cit- izens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, illustrated edition Zed Books Ltd, London, pp. 218-231.
  46. Stoker, G., 1998. Governance as theory: five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50 (155), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106. · DOI
  47. Sundström, A., 2008. Self-assessment of driving skill -a review from a measurement perspective. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 11 (1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. trf.2007.05.002. · DOI
  48. Taiebat, M., et al., 2018. A review on energy, environmental, and sustainability implications of connected and automated vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (20), 11449-11465. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00127. · DOI
  49. Tennant, C., Stares, S., Howard, S., 2019. Public discomfort at the prospect of autonomous ve- hicles: building on previous surveys to measure attitudes in 11 countries. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 64, 98-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.017. · DOI
  50. Thomopoulos, N., Givoni, M., 2015. The autonomous car-a blessing or a curse for the future of low carbon mobility? An exploration of likely vs. desirable outcomes. Eur. J. Futures Res. 3 (1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-015-0071-z. · DOI
  51. Tierney, T.F. (Ed.), Intelligent Infrastructure: Zip Cars, Invisible Networks, and Urban Transformation, 1st edition University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.
  52. Vinsel, L., 2018. "Safe driving depends on the man at the wheel": psychologists and the sub- ject of auto safety, 1920-55. Osiris 33 (1), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1086/699550. · DOI
  53. Wadud, Z., 2017. Fully automated vehicles: a cost of ownership analysis to inform early adoption. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 101, 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.005. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Welsh, I., Wynne, B., 2013. Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: passive objects, incipient threats. Sci. Cult. 22 (4), 540-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14636778.2013.764072. · DOI
  55. Wigley, E., Rose, G., 2020. Who's behind the wheel? Visioning the future users and urban con- texts of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Geogr. Ann. Ser. B, 1-17 https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2020.1747943. · DOI
  56. Winfield, A.F.T., Jirotka, M., 2018. Ethical governance is essential to building trust in robotics and artificial intelligence systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376 (2133), 20180085. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0085. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Wynne, B., 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in Science -hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genomics 9 (3), 211-220. https://doi. org/10.1159/000092659. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cohen, T., Stilgoe, J., Stares, S., Akyelken, N., Cavoli, C., Day, J., Dickinson, J., Fors, V., Hopkins, D., Lyons, G., Marres, N., Newman, J., Reardon, L., Sipe, N., Tennant, C., Wadud, Z., & Wigley, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Westminster (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Bournemouth University (GB)
  • Halmstad University (SE)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • The Open University (GB)
Corresponding author
Stilgoe, Jack
ORCID
Venue
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
6
Pages
100133
ISSN
2590-1982 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.trip.2020.100133
OpenAlex
W3035194199
Cited by
97
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • WestminsterResearch (University of Westminster) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/S001832/1)
  • University College London
  • Alan Turing Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, social science research, technology acceptance, interdisciplinary research, future of transport, land use, economic change, well-being

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