Acceptance and safety. R5

Will people accept the change to electric?

How safe are the vehicles with new technology etc?

Feb 2024

 https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/19/21262576/self-driving-cars-poll-av-perception-trust-scepticism-pave     source is useful because it is a tech review website meaning their job is to honestly review the newest technology out there, therefore this review should be truthful as well there is a published date and the name of the author.

Author Andrew J Hawkins

May 19, 2020

Self-driving cars are having a rough time gaining our trust.

Given that autonomous vehicles are still mostly a concept and a pipe dream for most people, this is not entirely surprising. The few autonomous vehicles now on the road are largely test cars that aren't open to the general public. Add to it the extremely, shall we say, complex sentiments Americans have towards ideas like "freedom" and "control,"

The newest survey from Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE), a grouping of businesses and charities working to increase public knowledge of autonomous vehicles, confirms this widespread mistrust. They'll have their job cut out for them, as is evident from a short check of the findings.

Autonomous car technology, according to nearly 3 in 4 Americans, "is not ready for prime time."

About 48% of respondents declared they would never ride in a self-driving taxi or ride-sharing vehicle.

20% more people believe that autonomous vehicles will never be secure.

Only 34% of respondents believe that the benefits of AVs will outweigh the drawbacks.

Only 18% of people are eager to join the first AV waitlist.

These were some of the conclusions drawn from a study conducted by PAVE among 1,200 Americans who were contacted by the polling company SurveyUSA between late February and early March 2020. But the findings of any survey on self-driving cars conducted over the previous five years could have easily been the case. Several organisations focused on the automobile, such as AAA, Kelley Blue Book

When seen collectively, these findings provide an unfavourable picture of the future of autonomous cars. After all, public acceptance and willingness to use the technology will greatly influence its success.

Waymo, Cruise, and Argo, three companies developing self-driving taxis, have previously addressed these concerns through their trial programmes and limited commercial deployments. Naturally, they have their information and, as a result, their theories about how to dispel this scepticism. 

Additionally, the numbers aren't all that bad. A little more than half of those surveyed by PAVE and SurveyUSA claimed to drive a car equipped with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) such as automated emergency braking, lane-keep assist, and blind spot recognition. According to the survey, acceptance of these qualities and familiarity with them might result in a more favourable opinion towards self-driving automobiles. It makes sense, but there is still a big step between a vehicle with improved cruise control and one that can operate autonomously. 

The majority of respondents were in favour of a vehicle that facilitates driving "but with the driver always in full control." Every firm that purports to be pursuing completely autonomous vehicles finds this to be in opposition. They contend that since human error accounts for the majority of vehicle collisions, eliminating people from the equation is necessary to increase road safety. 

Because of this, manufacturers like Cruise are creating cars without standard controls like steering wheels and pedals. Additionally, organisations like Nuro are lobbying for exemptions from federal rules that call for features like backup cameras and rearview mirrors.

PAVE claims that rather than being aware of a particular drawback or issue, this scepticism and distrust are based on ignorance and a lack of experience. For instance, the majority of respondents said they were unaware of any deaths involving automated technology, such as the tragic Uber accident in Tempe, Arizona, or any of the drivers who lost their lives while operating a Tesla with Autopilot. Operators should take note of the fact that consumers don't necessarily need to learn about the truly severe failures to have genuine animosity against the technology. 

People are more inclined to trust self-driving cars as more of them are put into use, according to PAVE. But given that many of the early assessments of the technology's readiness have since turned out to be overly optimistic, that will take some time. By 2020, many people anticipated that robot cars will be commonplace on the roads, but here we are. 2020 has arrived, and the percentage of AVs in testing now is quite small.

According to Karl Iagnemma, CEO of Hyundai and Aptiv's joint venture on autonomous vehicles, there was a misconception that autonomous technology would one day be solved in a binary fashion and become widely available. "There's been steady improvement over time, but there would not be a binary step function where one day we don't have EVs and the next they're everywhere," he said.

Iagnemma claimed that EV owners are just starting to understand how the general public feels about self-driving cars. Although this is important knowledge, it will take time, more traffic, and more people before attitudes start to shift. Two safety operators are seated in the front seat of Aptiv's robotaxi trial with Lyft in Las Vegas, which has completed over 100,000 rides. People can watch the two operators, but they can also witness the automobile do novel tasks.

Customers observe the steering wheel turning on its own, Iagnemma added, even if there are vehicle operators inside the vehicle. Most people consider this to be a significant occasion. a learning opportunity.

Self-driving cars need a common language to talk about safety, or they will fail 

The success of autonomous vehicles relies on public trust 

By Andrew j Hawkins

Oct 11, 2018

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion over the necessity for a "common language" about self-driving automobiles. Recently, Ford came out in support of standardised visual cues that autonomous cars may employ to signal their purpose to other drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. The Society of Automotive Engineers' five degrees of automation, which serve as the industry benchmark for self-driving technology, are still under fire from detractors for being overbroad and potentially unsafe. The majority of experts concur that we need a more effective, uniform manner to discuss self-driving automobiles.

The RAND Corporation announced its thorough effort to establish a universal language for autonomous cars today. The 91-page report, titled "Measuring Automated Vehicle Safety: Forging a Framework," aims to provide an answer to the pressing query: Can bitter rivals discover shared metrics for safety that the general public would find useful?

We require better, more consistent language to discuss self-driving automobiles.

After all, it is the main impediment to any attempt to standardise anything in the field of autonomous vehicles. Waymo, Tesla, GM, Ford, and Uber are among the companies who would rather litigate their rivals into oblivion than sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya. According to the Brookings Institute, these businesses have spent $80 billion on research and development to achieve the advantages of a $7 trillion industry. Why would they consent to anything that would give their rivals an equal playing field and take away their advantages?

The report's primary author, Marjory Blumenthal, a senior policy analyst at Rand, believes the solution is straightforward: there won't be any self-driving vehicles if people aren't comfortable riding in them. According to Blumenthal, "Transparency is not at its highest level." Therefore, it seems appropriate to offer a means by which businesses can be encouraged to find some commonality in the way they discuss how and why their vehicles are safe. Even though there are currently very few public trials of autonomous vehicles taking place in the US, Europe, Russia, and China, the public is becoming less and less confident in this new technology. In Tempe, Arizona, in March, a self-driving Uber car struck and killed a pedestrian as the backup safety driver was allegedly filming the incident on her phone, according to authorities. Following the accident, Uber halted testing, and some safety advocates claimed that it demonstrated that the system was not yet secure enough to be tested on public roads. Public trust is necessary for autonomous car success, according to Blumenthal. Having a uniform reference point can aid the development community in moving towards safer cars and fostering public confidence because autonomous vehicle development is currently taking place along several pathways.

"At the moment, different paths for autonomous vehicle development are being taken"

Ironically, Uber's Advanced Technology Group—which manages the ride-hailing company's fleet of AVs—asked RAND to develop a common vocabulary for self-driving cars. Nearly a year before the fatal Tempe crash, the company asked RAND to develop a company-neutral framework for EV safety.  The goal of Blumenthal and her team was to speak with a wide range of stakeholders, including researchers, public safety advocates, and engineers from Tesla, Waymo, and Toyota. 

RAND begins by outlining the development, demonstration, and deployment phases of the life cycle of self-driving automobiles. It also takes into account safety factors like collisions, violations (like running a red light), and a brand-new metric called "road manship," which assesses if the car is a "good citizen" on the road and gets along with other drivers. Before EVs are put via public testing, RAND advises that road manship should have a defined definition.

Where the safety measures were taken—in a simulation, on a confined course or proving ground, or in the wild, on public roads with and without a safety driver.

Self-driving cars' "operational domain design" can also take into consideration a range of outside circumstances, including terrain, climate, illumination, road markers, and others.

RAND criticises EV businesses for using utopian language when discussing self-driving vehicles throughout the entirety of its research. "Unrealistic claims of near perfection" may distort the public's understanding of what EVs are capable of. Even one accident can invalidate claims that widespread deployment of Evs will reduce the number of fatalities caused by motor vehicles every year. This was demonstrated by the March Uber disaster, which resulted in a decline in public support for EVs.To encourage the use of self-driving cars, the federal government is delegating responsibility for regulation and enforcement to the states while altering its regulations to do so. Since California requires licences to test AVs on public roads, RAND suggests that local DMVs might want to play a bigger part in formalising the demonstration process.

A recommendation made by RAND to increase data sharing between businesses and government agencies is certain to be received with silence from the private sector. Companies are hesitant to provide their data because they think it can reveal crucial trade secrets. Blumenthal and her group, though, remain upbeat. The paper continues, "There is the promise of more coordinated action among competitors, what some may call coopetition.