Teenagers and Automated Vehicles: Are They Ready to Use Them?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the work done by the authors, however my only concern pertains to the small sample size and the subsequent statistical testing performed to gauge effect of autonomous vehicle demonstration on teenager opinion towards these autonomous vehicle. The authors may discuss difference in opinions with the post-pre survey but any substantial inference from the survey is not justified. The authors should consequently highlight the lack of significant sample size as one of the limitations of their work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript discussed teenagers’ opinions, perception and concerns related to AVs using focus group and post-pre survey in 6 European countries. Overall, this is an interesting and well-written manuscript. References are relevant and have covered recent studies. The methods are generally appropriate. However, the following items should be considered and better addressed:

1) As indicated by authors in the physical meeting with school students from Varese besides, engagement activities have been employed for collecting participants views after hands-on experience. The user engagement activities depicted in Figure1 should be further explained. Authors should elucidate:

·      * the method/s used for measurement of participants’ perceived mood on board. Given the fact that mood accounts for a great amount of the positive valuation towreds demonstrated technologies. I think you need to make it clearer which technique applied in your research for respondents to report their mood/emotions 

·       * the inspirational space as one of the organized engagement activities for data collection should be more clarified.

·       * however, in line 259 authors mentioned “results are briefly presented  here” but I could not find such results in the manuscript.

2) As I know, JRC has Living Labs for AVs, have you used the existing LLs in your research’s real-life demonstration and other teenagers engagement activities. if so, I would also suggest mentioning it in Section 3.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- how do you define future transport systems? in what ways?

- line 30: do you have more recent statistics? 

- line 58: which autonomous levels (L0-L5) of AVs are the authors discussing? 

- line 159: check spelling Pegnjun.

- line 198: teenagers and AVs. suggest including human factors by adding references: 

o) LIU, W., ZHU, Y., HUANG, R., OHASHI, T., AUERNHAMMER, J., ZHANG, X., ... & WANG, L. (2022). Designing interactive glazing through an engineering psychology approach: Six augmented reality scenarios that envision future car human-machine interface. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 5(5), 1-14.

o) Koo, J., Shin, D., Steinert, M., & Leifer, L. (2016). Understanding driver responses to voice alerts of autonomous car operations. International journal of vehicle design, 70(4), 377-392.

- line 250: all European schools? 

- line 274: suggest adding: Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Bis.

- line 426: what is the percentage? 

- what are the implications for other cultures, regions, and expectations other than western Europe? 

- why was FG the most effective approach for this study? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed all my concerns. The manuscript has been considerably improved. I recommend that the paper should be accepted in the present form.