Towards Autonomous Transportation. Passengers’ Experiences, Perceptions and Feelings in a Driverless Shuttle Bus in Finland

Autonomous vehicles, electrification, and ride-sharing appear to be the next big change in the field of mobility. It can lead to safer roads, less congestion, and reduced parking. In this research, we focus on real-life user experiences of a driverless shuttle bus. We are interested to know what kind of perceptions and feelings people have when they travel in an autonomous shuttle bus. Therefore, we apply Harry Triandis´ Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (TIB), which recognizes that human behavior is not always rational. Human behaviour, and its change, is linked to the intention, the habitual responses, and the situational constraints and conditions. The qualitative data (n = 44) were collected in 2017 by semi-structured interviews in Espoo, Finland. The interviewees were passengers who travelled a predefined route in a driverless shuttle bus. We applied inductive content analysis. The findings were compared in the theoretical framework of TIB. According to the results, a lack of human driver was not a problem for the passengers. They were surprised how safe and secure they felt in the autonomous vehicle. More specifically, passengers´ perceptions were similar to when travelling by a metro or a tram, where a passenger rarely interacts with the driver, or even witnesses the existence of the driver. However, the results suggest that people are much more intolerant of accidents caused by autonomous vehicles than by humans. On a general level, positive attitudes towards autonomous vehicles can be supported by giving people possibilities to try autonomous vehicles in a safe, real-life environment. The decision whether to use a driverless shuttle bus or not correlates highly with the contextual factors. Route and flexibility are the most important reasons for behavioral changes.

[1]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Incentives, Morality, Or Habit? Predicting Students’ Car Use for University Routes With the Models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis , 2003 .

[2]  L. Butler,et al.  Understanding fruit and vegetable consumption in children and adolescents. The contributions of affect, self-concept and habit strength , 2018, Appetite.

[3]  U. Flick,et al.  The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis , 2013 .

[4]  T. Chartrand,et al.  THE UNBEARABLE AUTOMATICITY OF BEING , 1999 .

[5]  C. Klöckner,et al.  Applying a Modified Moral Decision Making Model to Change Habitual Car Use: How Can Commitment be Effective? , 2006 .

[6]  A. Kollmuss,et al.  Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? , 2002 .

[7]  Margrit Schreier,et al.  Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice , 2012 .

[8]  Ellen Enkel,et al.  Applied artificial intelligence and trust—The case of autonomous vehicles and medical assistance devices , 2016 .

[9]  S. Heidenreich,et al.  Innovations—Doomed to fail? investigating strategies to overcome passive innovation resistance , 2016 .

[10]  C. Abraham,et al.  Psychological theories of car use: An integrative review and conceptual framework , 2018 .

[11]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[12]  A. Shariff,et al.  Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[13]  Milos N. Mladenovic,et al.  Policy lessons from the flexible transport service pilot Kutsuplus in the Helsinki Capital Region , 2017, Transport Policy.

[14]  D. Hine,et al.  Individual Restraint and Group Efficiency in Commons Dilemmas: The Effects of Two Types of Environmental Uncertainty1 , 1996 .

[15]  Natasha Merat,et al.  User acceptance of driverless shuttles running in an open and mixed traffic environment , 2017 .

[16]  J. Robinson.  Triandis' theory of interpersonal behaviour in understanding software piracy behaviour in the South African context. , 2010 .

[17]  Abraham Wandersman,et al.  Predicting Undergraduate Condom Use with the Fishbein and Ajzen and the Triandis Attitude‐Behavior Models: Implications for Public Health Interventions1 , 1991 .

[18]  A. Salonen,et al.  Sustainable Living in Finland: Combating Climate Change in Everyday Life , 2018 .

[19]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[20]  Helvi Kyngäs,et al.  The qualitative content analysis process. , 2008, Journal of advanced nursing.

[21]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[22]  Bern Grush,et al.  The End of Driving: Transportation Systems and Public Policy Planning for Autonomous Vehicles , 2018 .

[23]  D. Levinson,et al.  The End of Traffic and the Future of Access: A Roadmap to the New Transport Landscape , 2017 .

[24]  H C Triandis,et al.  Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. , 1980, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[25]  Tal Katz-Navon,et al.  When Collective- and Self-Efficacy Affect Team Performance , 2005 .

[26]  Itf.  Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic , 2015 .

[27]  Charles Abraham,et al.  Social psychological factors in lifestyle change and their relevance to policy , 2007 .

[28]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Human Factors, User Requirements, and User Acceptance of Ride-Sharing In Automated Vehicles , 2017 .

[29]  Adam Millard-Ball,et al.  Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities , 2016 .

[30]  Daniel J. Fagnant,et al.  The Future of Fully Automated Vehicles : Opportunities for Vehicle- and Ride-Sharing, with Cost and Emissions Savings , 2014 .

[31]  R. Inglehart.  Changing Values among Western Publics from 1970 to 2006 , 2008 .

[32]  L. G. Pee,et al.  Explaining non-work-related computing in the workplace: A comparison of alternative models , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[33]  Arto O. Salonen,et al.  Passenger's subjective traffic safety, in-vehicle security and emergency management in the driverless shuttle bus in Finland , 2018 .

[34]  Linda Steg,et al.  Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use , 2005 .

[35]  Vincent S. Lai,et al.  Prediction of Internet and World Wide Web usage at work: a test of an extended Triandis model , 2000, Decis. Support Syst..

[36]  Graham Currie,et al.  Causes of Youth Licensing Decline: A Synthesis of Evidence , 2013 .

[37]  Linda Shields,et al.  Content Analysis , 2015 .

[38]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[39]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms , 2007, Psychological science.

[40]  Patricia L. Mokhtarian,et al.  Projecting travelers into a world of self-driving vehicles: estimating travel behavior implications via a naturalistic experiment , 2018, Transportation.

[41]  Daniel J. Fagnant,et al.  Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations , 2015 .

[42]  Marie-Pierre Gagnon,et al.  An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians , 2003, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[43]  Andreas Diekmann,et al.  Green and Greenback , 2003 .

[44]  P. Santi,et al.  Addressing the minimum fleet problem in on-demand urban mobility , 2018, Nature.

[45]  D. Raphael,et al.  I: The Theory of Moral Sentiments , 1976 .

[46]  Mauro Bellone,et al.  State of the Art of Automated Buses , 2018, Sustainability.

[47]  Oliver Schwedes,et al.  Urban Multimodal Travel Behaviour: Towards Mobility without a Private Car☆ , 2014 .

[48]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Future bus transport contracts under a mobility as a service (MaaS) regime in the digital age: Are they likely to change? , 2017 .

[49]  R. Jurin,et al.  Symbolic Beliefs as Barriers to Responsible Environmental Behavior , 2002 .