Habits, attitudes, and expectations of regular users of partial driving automation systems.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about regular users' perceptions of partial (Level 2) automation or how those perceptions affect behind-the-wheel behavior. METHOD: A mixed mode (phone and online) survey explored the habits, expectations, and attitudes among regular users of General Motors Super Cruise (n = 200), Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist (n = 202), and Tesla Autopilot (n = 202). RESULTS: All three groups reported being more likely to engage in non-driving-related activities while using their systems than while driving unassisted. Super Cruise and Autopilot users especially were more likely to report engaging in activities that involved taking their hands off the wheel or their eyes off the road. Many Super Cruise and Autopilot users also said they could perform secondary (non-driving-related) tasks better and more often while using their systems, while fewer ProPILOT Assist users shared this opinion. Super Cruise users were most likely and ProPILOT Assist users least likely to think that secondary activities were safer to perform while using their systems. While some drivers said they found user safeguards (e.g., attention reminders, lockouts) annoying and tried to circumvent them, most people said they found them helpful and felt safer with them. Large percentages of users (53% Super Cruise, 42% Autopilot and 12% ProPILOT Assist) indicated they were comfortable treating their systems as self-driving. CONCLUSIONS: Some regular users have a poor understanding of their technology's limits. System design appears to contribute to user perceptions and behavior. However, owner populations also differ, which means habits, attitudes, and expectations may not generalize. Most people value user safeguards, but some implementations may not be effective for everyone. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Multifaceted, proactive user-centric safeguards are needed to shape proper behavior and understanding about drivers' roles and responsibilities while using partial driving automation.

Consumer experiences with crash avoidance feature repairs.

INTRODUCTION: Popularity of crash avoidance features is growing, but so too is confusion around how to repair them, how much repairs should cost, and who should pay for those repairs. This study's purpose was to capture how these issues are affecting consumers. METHOD: A total of 496 vehicle owners in the United States were surveyed online and by phone about their experiences repairing front crash prevention (n = 359), blind spot detection (n = 317), and/or driver assistance cameras (n = 348) equipped on their personal vehicles. RESULTS: Owners tended to have multiple reasons for repairs. Repairs due to vehicle (i.e., crash or windshield) damage corresponded with the greatest likelihood of post-repair issues, especially if calibration was performed, and higher out-of-pocket costs (possibly because of deductibles or other repair work). About half of respondents who had calibrations performed on features repaired because of vehicle damage reported persisting issues with the features after repair. Post-repair issues were more common for repairs performed at independent repairers than dealership service centers, yet similar feature calibration rates were reported for both types of repairers. More people went to dealership service centers than independent repairers, and these respondents were more likely to say they would return to this type of facility for a similar repair in the future. Although most repairers explained why repairs occurred, less than half of respondents said they completely understood the reasons given. CONCLUSIONS: There are new complications in the repair cycle affecting consumers. Post-repair issues are more prevalent than previously assumed, regardless of the crash avoidance feature repaired. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Post-repair issues risk undermining consumer acceptance and the safety potential of critical features. Simplifying the repair process and establishing affordable and accessible centralized databases with repair specifications and instructions from the manufacturers would be a start to addressing industry-wide challenges.

Consumer demand for partial driving automation and hands-free driving capability.

INTRODUCTION: It is often assumed that consumers want partial driving automation in their vehicles, yet there has been little research on the topic. Also unclear is what the public's appetite is for hands-free driving capability, automated (auto)-lane-change functionality, and driver monitoring that helps reinforce proper use of these features. METHOD: Through an internet-based survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,010 U.S. adult drivers, this study explored consumer demand for different aspects of partial driving automation. RESULTS: Eighty percent of drivers want to use lane centering, but more prefer versions with a hands-on-wheel requirement (36%) than hands-free (27%). More than half of drivers are comfortable with different driver monitoring strategies, but comfort level is related to perceptions of feeling safer with it given its role in helping drivers use the technology properly. People who prefer hands-free lane centering are the most accepting of other vehicle technologies, including driver monitoring, but some also indicate an intent to misuse these features. The public is somewhat more reluctant to accept auto lane change, with 73% saying they would use it, and more often prefer it to be driver-initiated (45%) than vehicle-initiated (14%). More than three quarters of drivers want auto lane change to have a hands-on-wheel requirement. CONCLUSION: Consumers are interested in partial driving automation, but there is resistance to more sophisticated functionality, especially vehicle-initiated auto lane change, in a vehicle that cannot technically drive itself. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This study confirms the public's appetite for partial driving automation and possible intention for misuse. It is imperative that the technology be designed in ways that deter such misuse. The data suggest that consumer information, including marketing, has a role to play to communicate the purpose and safety value of driver monitoring and other user-centric design safeguards to promote their implementation, acceptance, and safe adoption.