Cited by 400Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTransportation and Mobility InnovationsTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia

Open access
Schoettle, Brandon, Sivak, Michael·2014·2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE)

Abstract

This survey examined public opinion regarding connected-vehicle technology across three large English-speaking countries-the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. The survey yielded useable responses from 1,596 persons over the age of 18. The main results were as follows: The majority of respondents had not previously heard of connected-vehicle technology; however, most had a positive initial opinion of the technology. The majority felt that the expected benefits presented in the survey are likely to occur. Respondents generally expressed a high level of concern regarding the security and performance issues presented in the survey. The majority of those surveyed stated that safety was the most important aspect of connected vehicles. Most individuals said that it is important for personal communication devices to integrate with connected vehicles, as well as for such vehicles to have Internet connectivity. The majority of respondents expressed a desire to have this technology in their vehicle. Willingness to pay for connected-vehicle technology was very similar across the three countries. The main implications of these results are that the general public in the three countries surveyed feel positive about connected vehicles, have optimistic expectations of the benefits (while still maintaining some concerns), and generally desire connected-vehicle technology when it becomes available.

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 · 10.1109/iccve.2014.7297637

Cites

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?

  • In Schoettle and Sivak's US survey, 69% were highly concerned about AV system safety.

    “The survey by Schoettle and Sivak in the US shows that 69% of the respondents are highly concerned about the safety of the AV system [35].”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

    The ‘Concerns about using connected vehicles’ section and survey question Q4 show that U.S. respondents were asked about safety consequences of equipment or system failure. But the paper surveys connected vehicles, not autonomous-vehicle (AV) systems, and the passages retrieved from Table 4 do not substantiate the claim that 69% were highly concerned. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Schoettle and Sivak found that 19% of males were fully AVs compared with 12.4% of females.

    “Schoettle and Sivak, found that males are more interested in AVs, with 19% of the males fully AVs compared to 12.4% of the females.”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

    Table 6 (Conclusions; page unavailable) reports a statistically significant gender effect for Q6, which asks about interest in having connected-vehicle technology on a vehicle. It does not give the direction of that difference or the claimed 19% and 12.4% figures. The survey concerns connected vehicles, not fully autonomous vehicles. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Schoettle and Sivak found that 30% of males were concerned about fully AVs compared with 40% of females.

    “Additionally, females responded with higher levels of concern than males as 30% of males were concerned about fully AVs compared to 40% of females [35].”

    From Public acceptance and perception of autonomous vehicles: a comprehensive review (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

    The “Concerns about using connected vehicles” section reports responses by country, and the Conclusions describe general concern about connected-vehicle security and performance. Neither gives concern rates by gender or addresses fully autonomous vehicles. Searches for the 30%/40% figures and male–female comparison found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2014-11
Pages
687-692
OpenAlex
W1896855614
Cited by
400
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5
FWCI
22.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
connected vehicles, public opinion, technology acceptance, consumer attitudes, vehicle safety, cybersecurity concerns, internet access, willingness to pay, cross-national comparison, United States, United Kingdom, Australia

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