User Acceptance Study

Did You Know?

Key facts about the safety, efficiency, and technology of autonomous vehicles

🛡️

Safety

AVs generally show lower crash rates than traditional vehicles, especially for severe accidents. Waymo demonstrated exceptional performance mitigating collisions caused by human errors such as speeding and abrupt lane changes.

⚠️

Human Error

A study by IDTechEx found that 99% of AV accidents were attributable to human mistakes — other drivers misjudging situations or violating traffic rules — not the AV technology itself.

🌿

Efficiency & Emissions

AVs optimise speed, acceleration, and braking, reducing fuel consumption by up to 18% and emissions by ~25%. Adaptive cruise control and predictive eco-driving avoid unnecessary stops.

🤖

Chaotic Traffic

Data from Waymo and Cruise shows AVs handle chaotic traffic more safely than human drivers by adhering strictly to rules and reacting faster to sudden hazards.

🧪

Advanced Crash Testing

Traditional tests use the Hybrid III male dummy. THOR dummies now incorporate advanced sensors and anatomy to evaluate injury risk across diverse demographics — children, elderly, and different body types.

📈

EcoMobility Finding

After the EcoMobility programme, user acceptance increased by +38.6% overall, and male participants showed a remarkable +65% increase — the gender gap was almost fully closed.

Phase 1 — Baseline

Strong Starting Point

The first survey was conducted at the start of the project — before workshops or hands-on engagement — giving a true baseline of user attitudes toward autonomous electric mobility.

Overall BIU Score

21,067

HIGH acceptance category (10,000–50,000)

Respondents

130

Across EcoMobility partner countries

SAE Awareness

76.9%

Familiar with AV standards (SAE Level >3)

Prior HAV Experience

25.4%

Had ridden in a highly autonomous vehicle

Figure 8: Phase 1 Overall BIU Acceptance Meter — score of 21,067 places the sample in the HIGH acceptance category.

Phase 1 Average Score Distribution by Factor

Figure 9: Phase 1 Average Score Distribution — all five factors between 6.8 and 7.6, with Perceived Trust the lowest.

Figure 10: Phase 1 Correlation Matrix — PT–FC (r=0.73) is the strongest inter-factor link, reflecting trust–infrastructure dependency.

Key takeaway: Even before any engagement programme, acceptance was HIGH. The main bottleneck was Perceived Trust (6.8/10) — the only factor below 7.0. Infrastructure investment and transparent safety communication were identified as the strongest levers for improvement.

Factor Scores (scale 1–10)

Factor	Description	Score	Visual	Share of BIU
PU	Perceived Usefulness	7.6	7.6	20.8%
PEU	Perceived Ease of Use	7.5	7.5	20.4%
SI	Social Influence	7.4	7.4	20.3%
FC	Facilitating Conditions	7.3	7.3	19.8%
PT	Perceived Trust ⚠ Bottleneck	6.8	6.8	18.6%

Gender Breakdown

Figure 11: Phase 1 Overall BIU Female — 26,321 (HIGH). Scores are tightly clustered with only 0.4 pts spread.

Figure 12: Phase 1 Factor Distribution Female — four factors at 7.7 or above; PT is the only factor below 7.5.

Figure 14: Phase 1 Overall BIU Male — 17,372 (HIGH). Significantly lower than female respondents, driven by low PT (6.4).

Figure 15: Phase 1 Score Distribution Male — wider spread of 1.1 pts; Perceived Trust is the clear bottleneck at 6.4.

Female Respondents

26,321HIGH

Highest factor: Perceived Usefulness (7.8)
Lowest factor: Perceived Trust (7.4)
Only 0.4 pts spread — very balanced profile
25.1% higher BIU than the overall average

Male Respondents

17,372HIGH

Highest factor: Perceived Usefulness (7.5)
Lowest factor: Perceived Trust (6.4)
1.1 pts spread — trust is the clear bottleneck
17.4% below the overall average

Who Responded

Age

18–2423.8%
25–3230.8%
33–4527.7%
45–5413.1%
55+4.6%

Gender

Male53.8%
Female42.3%
Prefer not to say3.9%

Education

Master's degree40.0%
Bachelor's degree27.7%
Ph.D. or higher23.8%
College / Secondary8.5%

Top Countries

Czech Republic42.3%
Cyprus13.1%
Other EU countries44.6%

Phase 2 — End of Project

A 38.6% Jump in Acceptance

After workshops, a user acceptance game, and ongoing engagement, the same cohort was surveyed again. Every single factor improved — and the gender gap almost entirely closed.

Overall BIU Score

29,168

HIGH acceptance category (+38.6% vs Phase 1)

Respondents

130

Same sample size and gender split

Biggest Gain

+0.9

Perceived Trust rose from 6.8 → 7.7

Gender Gap

~0%

Male BIU up 65% — gap almost fully closed

Figure 17: Phase 2 Overall BIU Acceptance Meter — 29,168 (HIGH), a 38.6% increase over Phase 1.

Figure 18: Phase 2 Score Distribution — all five factors above 7.5; Perceived Usefulness leads at 8.2.

Figure 19: Phase 2 Correlation Matrix — correlations weakened (max r=0.56), indicating more independent, mature user judgements.

Key takeaway: The EcoMobility engagement programme had a measurable impact. Perceived Trust showed the largest single-factor gain (+0.9 pts), confirming that direct user engagement is the most effective trust-building mechanism. Inter-factor correlations weakened, signalling a more informed user base.