The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 0, The full questionnaire text can be downloaded at
- 2014, NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
- 2014, SurveyMonkey
- 2012, Questions & answers about DOT's safety pilot model deployment
- 2012, Light vehicle driver acceptance clinics Preliminary results
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective
Bansal, P., Kockelman, K. M., & Singh, A. (2016) · Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019 · Cited by 1,025
Autonomous vehicle perception: The technology of today and tomorrow
Van Brummelen, J., O’Brien, M., Gruyer, D., & Najjaran, H. (2018) · Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2018.02.012 · Cited by 869
The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles
Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X. Y., Lin, R., & Zhang, W. (2018) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018 · Cited by 900
Autonomous vehicles: challenges, opportunities, and future implications for transportation policies
Bagloee, S. A., Madjid Tavana, D., Asadi, M., & Oliver, T. (2016) · 西南交通大学学报：英文版 · doi:10.1007/s40534-016-0117-3 · Cited by 828
What have we learned? A review of stated preference and choice studies on autonomous vehicles
Gkartzonikas, C., & Gkritza, K. (2018) · Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2018.12.003 · Cited by 515
Metadata
- Authors
- Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- ORCID
- Schoettle, Brandon
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Transportation › 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
