Lived Experiences of People with and without Disabilities across the Lifespan on Autonomous Shuttles
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Literature Review Driving across the Human Lifespan
1.2. Rationale and Significance
1.3. Purpose
2. Methods
2.1. Ethics and IRB Approval
2.2. Study Design
2.3. Participants
2.3.1. Recruitment
2.3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3.3. Screening and Enrollment
2.3.4. Sample
2.4. Measures
Equipment
2.5. Procedure
2.6. Data Collection and Management
2.7. Data Analysis
2.7.1. Quantitative Data Analysis
2.7.2. Qualitative Data Analysis
Phase 1 Qualitative Data Analysis
Phase 2 and Phase 2 Extension Qualitative Data Analysis
Trustworthiness
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
3.2. Conventional Content Analysis
3.3. Directed Content Analysis
3.4. Results
3.4.1. Safety
3.4.2. Ease of Use
3.4.3. Cost
3.4.4. Availability
3.4.5. Aging
3.4.6. AS Information
3.4.7. Experience with AS
4. Discussion
4.1. Demographics
4.2. Conventional Content Analysis
4.3. Directed Content Analysis
4.4. Frequency Counts
4.5. Limitations
4.6. Strengths
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- J3016_202104; Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. Society of Automotive Engineers International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Turnbull, K.F. Enhancing mobility with automated shuttles and buses. In Road Vehicle Automation 10, Proceedings of the ART Symposium 2022, Garden Grove, CA, USA, 18–21 July 2022; Lecture Notes in Mobility; Meyer, G., Beiker, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordhoff, S.; Van Arem, B.; Happee, R. Conceptual model to explain, predict, and improve user acceptance of driverless podlike vehicles. Trans. Res. Rec. 2016, 2602, 60–67. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3141/2602-08 (accessed on 2 August 2023). [CrossRef]
- Williams, B. Navya’s Fully Self-Driving Taxi Looks Straight out of Robocop. Available online: https://mashable.com/article/navya-autonom-cab-announcement (accessed on 9 March 2023).
- Paddeu, D.; Parkhurst, G.; Shergold, I. Passenger comfort and trust on first-time use of a shared autonomous shuttle vehicle. Trans. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2020, 115, 102604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassens-Noor, E.; Kotval-Karamchandani, Z.; Cai, M. Willingness to ride and perceptions of autonomous public transit. Trans. Res. Part A Policy Prac. 2020, 138, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Classen, S.; Sisiopiku, V.; Mason, J.; Stetten, N.E.; Yang, W.; Hwangbo, S.W.; McKinney, B.; Kwan, J. Final STRIDE Project A5: UF & UAB’s Phase II Demonstration Study: Barriers and Facilitators of People with Disabilities in Accepting and Adopting Autonomous Shared Mobility Services. U.S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program. 2022. Available online: https://stride.ce.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2022/12/STRIDE-Project-A5-Final-Report-Nov-2022.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
- Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics 2021; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2021/dl20.cfm (accessed on 2 August 2023).
- Insurance Institute for Highway Safety & Highway Loss Data Institute. Older Drivers 2023. Available online: https://www.iihs.org/topics/older-drivers#by-the-numbers (accessed on 6 March 2023).
- Chihuri, S.; Mielenz, T.J.; DiMaggio, C.J.; Betz, M.E.; DiGuiseppi, C.; Jones, V.C.; Li, G. Driving cessation and health outcomes in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2016, 64, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edwards, J.D.; Lunsman, M.; Perkins, M.; Rebok, G.W.; Roth, D.L. Driving cessation and health trajectories in older adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2009, 64, 1290–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonda, S.J.; Wallace, R.B.; Herzog, A.R. Changes in driving patterns and worsening depressive symptoms among older adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2001, 56, S343–S351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, E.E.; Gange, S.J.; Muñoz, B.; West, S.K. Driving status and risk of entry into long-term care in older adults. Am. J. Public Health 2006, 96, 1254–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilgarter, K.; Granig, P. Public perception of autonomous vehicles: A qualitative study based on interviews after riding an autonomous shuttle. Trans. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 72, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Z.; Feng, T.; Timmermans, H.J.; Yao, B. Using autonomous vehicles or shared cars? Results of a stated choice experiment. Trans. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2021, 128, 103117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Classen, S.; Mason, J.; Hwangbo, S.W.; Wersal, J.; Rogers, J.; Sisiopiku, V. Older drivers’ experience with automated vehicle technology. J. Trans. Health 2021, 22, 101107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begg, D.J.; Langley, J.D.; Stephenson, S. Identifying factors that predict persistent driving after drinking, unsafe driving after drinking, and driving after using cannabis among young adults. Acc. Anal. Prev. 2003, 35, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salonen, A.O.; Haavisto, N. Towards autonomous transportation. Passengers’ experiences, perceptions and feelings in a driverless shuttle bus in Finland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Classen, S.; Sisiopiku, V.P.; Mason, J.R.; Yang, W.; Hwangbo, S.W.; McKinney, B.; Li, Y. Experience of drivers of all age groups in accepting autonomous vehicle technology. J. Intell. Trans. Syst. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.; Li, W.; Stough, L.; Lee, C.; Turnbull, K. A focus group study on the potential of autonomous vehicles as a viable transportation option: Perspectives from people with disabilities and public transit agencies. Trans. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 70, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etminani-Ghasrodashti, R.; Patel, R.K.; Kermanshachi, S.; Rosenberger, J.M.; Weinreich, D.; Foss, A. Integration of shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs) into existing transportation services: A focus group study. Trans. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021, 12, 100481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, K.; Chng, S.; Cheah, L. Understanding acceptance of shared autonomous vehicles among people with different mobility and communication needs. Travel Behav. Soc. 2022, 29, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dicianno, B.E.; Sivakanthan, S.; Sundaram, S.A.; Satpute, S.; Kulich, H.; Powers, E.; Deepak, N.; Russell, R.; Cooper, R.; Cooper, R.A. Systematic review: Automated vehicles and services for people with disabilities. Neurosci. Lett. 2021, 761, 136103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klinich, K.D.; Orton, N.R.; Manary, M.A.; McCurry, E.; Lanigan, T. Independent Safety for Wheelchair Users in Automated Vehicles; University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; Available online: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/176171/UMTRI-2022-4.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 2 August 2023).
- Pigeon, C.; Alauzet, A.; Paire-Ficout, L. Factors of acceptability, acceptance and usage for non-rail autonomous public transport vehicles: A systematic literature review. Trans. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 81, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riggs, W.; Pande, A. On-demand microtransit and paratransit service using autonomous vehicles: Gaps and opportunities in accessibility policy. Trans. Policy 2022, 127, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Classen, S.; Sisiopiku, V.P.; Mason, J.R.; Stetten, N.E.; Hwangbo, S.W.; Kwan, J.; Yang, W. Barriers and facilitators of people with and without disabilities before and after autonomous shuttle exposure. Future Trans. 2023, 3, 791–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, J.; Hanson, C.; Fox, E.J.; Burns, H.; Joseph, J.; Horwitz, H.; Classen, S. Perceptions of autonomous shuttles for adults with spinal cord injuries. OTJR Occup. Ther. J. Res. 2024, 44, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fink, P.D.; Holz, J.A.; Giudice, N.A. Fully autonomous vehicles for people with visual impairment: Policy, accessibility, and future directions. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 2021, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, R.; Vijaygopal, R.; Kottasz, R. Attitudes towards autonomous vehicles among people with physical disabilities. Trans. Res. Part A Policy Prac. 2019, 127, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, J.; Classen, S.; Wersal, J.; Sisiopiku, V. Construct validity and test-retest reliability of the automated vehicle user perception survey. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 626791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nasreddine, Z.S.; Phillips, N.A.; Bédirian, V.; Charbonneau, S.; Whitehead, V.; Collin, I.; Cummings, J.L.; Chertkow, H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dujardin, K.; Duhem, S.; Guerouaou, N.; Djelad, S.; Drumez, E.; Duhamel, A.; Bombois, S.; Nasreddine, Z.; Bordet, R.; Deplanque, D. Validation in French of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment 5-Minute, a brief cognitive screening test for phone administration. Revue Neurol. 2021, 177, 972–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA & Accessible Ground Transportation. Available online: https://adata.org/factsheet/ADA-accessible-transportation (accessed on 11 April 2023).
- Glaser, B.G.; Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine De Gruyter: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 12 June 2023).
- Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lincoln, Y.S.; Guba, E.G. Naturalistic Inquiry; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Manning, K. Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations without pre-scription. Qual. Inq. 1997, 3, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connelly, L.M. Demographic data in research studies. Med. Nurs. 2013, 22, 269–271. Available online: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A341687270/AONE?u=tall22798&sid=googleScholar&xid=66560392 (accessed on 2 August 2023).
- Litman, T. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions; Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2023; Available online: https://www.vtpi.org/avip.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2023).
- Booth, L.; Tan, T.; Norman, R.; Anund, A.; Pettigrew, S. Experiences of older adults interacting with a shared autonomous vehicle and recommendations for future implementation. Trans. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 90, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegfried, A.L.; Bayne, A.; Beck, L.F.; Freund, K. Older adult willingness to use fully autonomous vehicle (FAV) ride sharing. Geriatrics 2021, 6, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Musselwhite, C. Older people’s mobility, new transport technologies and user-centred innovation. In Towards User-Centric Transport in Europe; Müller, B., Meyer, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nanchen, B.; Ramseyer, R.; Grèzes, S.; Wyer, M.; Gervaix, A.; Juon, D.; Fragnière, E. Perceptions of people with special needs regarding autonomous vehicles and implication on the design of mobility as a service to foster social inclusion. Front. Hum. Dyn. 2022, 3, 751258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Government Accountability Office. ADA Paratransit Services: Demand Has Increased, but Little Is Known about Compliance (GAO-13-17); U.S. Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available online: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650079.pdf (accessed on 6 October 2023).
- Nordhoff, S.; de Winter, J.; Payre, W.; Van Arem, B.; Happee, R. What impressions do users have after a ride in an automated shuttle? An interview study. Trans. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 63, 252–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Data | Older Adults (n = 104) | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults (n = 106) | PWDs (n = 42) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | Category | |||
Age, Mean (SD) | - | 74.30 (5.95) | 36.22 (15.04) | 50.0 (17.1) |
Sex, n (%) | Men | 47 (45%) | 48 (45%) | 18 (43%) |
Women | 57 (55%) | 58 (55%) | 24 (57%) | |
Race/Ethnicity, n (%) | African American or Black | 7 (7%) | 12 (12%) | 25 (60%) |
Asian or Pacific Islander | - | 38 (36%) | - | |
Caucasian or White | 93 (89%) | 37 (35%) | 14 (33%) | |
Hispanic or Latino | - | 14 (13%) | - | |
Multiracial | - | 2 (2%) | 2 (5%) | |
Other | 4 (4%) | 3 (2%) | 1 (2%) | |
Education, n (%) | No high school diploma | - | - | 4 (10%) |
High school graduate or equivalent | 4 (4%) | 9 (8%) | 14 (33%) | |
Some college credits | 10 (10%) | 5 (5%) | 8 (19%) | |
Trade, technical, or vocational training | 2 (2%) | 2 (2%) | 1 (2%) | |
Associates degree | 12 (11%) | 32 (30%) | 1 (2%) | |
Bachelors degree | 21 (20%) | 29 (28%) | 9 (22%) | |
Masters degree | 32 (31%) | 9 (8%) | 4 (10%) | |
Doctorate or professional degree | 23 (22%) | 20 (19%) | 1 (2%) | |
Marital Status, n (%) | Single and never married | 6 (6%) | 63 (59%) | 19 (45%) |
Married or domestic partnership | 74 (71%) | 34 (32%) | 9 (22%) | |
Widowed | 11 (11%) | 1 (1%) | 3 (7%) | |
Divorced | 13 (12%) | 8 (8%) | 11 (26%) | |
Employment, n (%) | Part-time | 14 (13%) | 11 (10%) | 4 (10%) |
Full-time | 5 (5%) | 29 (27%) | 3 (7%) | |
Retired | 83 (80%) | 9 (9%) | 11 (26%) | |
Homemaker | 1 (1%) | 4 (4%) | 8 (19%) | |
Student | - | 48 (45%) | 7 (17%) | |
Unable to work | - | 4 (4%) | 1 (2%) | |
Unemployed | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 8 (19%) |
Themes | Operational Definitions of Themes |
---|---|
Safety | Ability of the AS to keep pedestrians, cyclists, passengers, and drivers safe in traffic. |
Ease of Use | AS is effortless and easy to operate safely, effectively, and efficiently while passengers enjoy the experience. |
Cost | Price associated with maintenance (i.e., repair and insurance) and fuel costs as well as the total cost of public AS transit (mobility) and private AV (purchase). |
Availability | AS is accessible in terms of routing and scheduling (e.g., access and reach). |
Aging | Challenges in physical, physiological, and/or cognitive functions because of aging or health decline brought on by disabilities or chronic illnesses, affecting one’s ability to drive. |
AS Information | Ability to access and obtain truthful and valid information and data (i.e., safety records) through media, education, or scientific articles. |
Experience with AS | Previous or future interaction, encounter, or exposure to autonomous vehicles (private and/or public transportation). |
Themes | Older Adults (n = 104) | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults (n = 106) | PWDs (n = 42) | All Combined (n = 252) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Frequency | Frequency | Frequency | Frequency | |
Safety (positive and negative) | 195 (28%) | 221 (34%) | 69 (33%) | 485 |
Ease of Use (positive and negative) | 93 (13%) | 105 (16%) | 46 (22%) | 244 |
Cost (positive and negative) | 83 (12%) | 57 (9%) | 11 (5%) | 151 |
Availability | 66 (9%) | 31 (5%) | 32 (15%) | 129 |
Aging | 63 (9%) | 15 (2%) | - | 78 |
AS Information | 36 (5%) | 33 (5%) | 13 (6%) | 82 |
Experience with AS | 10 (1%) | 64 (10%) | 12 (6%) | 86 |
Safe Narrative Examples | ||
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“The autonomous shuttle would be safer especially for older and less experienced drivers, and those who want to continue texting (ID: 109)”. “Autonomous shuttles would reduce human errors (ID: 113)”. “Autonomous shuttles keep unsafe drivers off the road (ID: 80)”. | “Autonomous shuttles would result in less mistakes/accidents due to distracted driving (ID: 33)”. “There would be less cars soon on the road, making it safer and better for the environment (ID: 17)”. | “Riding on it, I felt secured. The safety operator did not have to take control over it. The shuttle moved around to avoid the obstacles (ID:45)”. “Less accidents due to human error. Less cars on road if used for ridesharing. Less traffic (ID:40)”. |
Unsafe Narrative Examples | ||
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“Regular car drivers may not be alert of autonomous shuttles (ID: 66)”. “There may be crashes that would have been avoided by human, when the software engineering was poor (ID: 70)”. “Autonomous shuttles are shared with others, impacted by COVID virus or other pandemic (ID: 117)”. | “Autonomous shuttles may have cybersecurity issues (ID: 3)”. “Cars can still hit it. Not fit for crashes (ID: 33)”. “Some situations that auto vehicles cannot consider (ID: 106)”. | “As you are not paying attention and if something goes wrong (e.g., software), it will not be good (ID: 28). “Not having the human driving option would deter me from using autonomous shuttle (ID: 30). |
Convenience Narrative Examples | ||
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“I could be doing something else like reading during the autonomous shuttle ride (ID: 106)”. “Be great for neighborhood travel (ID:99)”. | “Autonomous shuttles would be helpful transportation for those unable to drive or for those trying to get a place with limited parking (ID: 77)”. “If I feel tired and don’t want to have to focus on driving myself somewhere (ID: 31)”. | “Myself being visually impaired, the fact that I do not have to drive, just enjoy and relax (ID: 1)”. “Ease of not having to drive, relax, going from point a to b with relaxing, I can rely on the tech to stay mobile (ID: 52)” “It gets people who has no ability to drive, and it allows to stay active in their community, productive member of the society through access in mobility (ID: 55)”. |
Inconvenience Narrative Examples | ||
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“Maybe other cars might think it’s going too slow (ID:104)”. “Time consuming (ID: 75)”. “Weather problems (ID: 9)”. | “The shuttle seemed to move too slowly to transport me from a starting point to a destination in a timely manner. It is fine for a leisurely ride, but I would feel impatient with the vehicle on a daily basis (ID: 31)”. “If the bad weather is a threat to autonomous shuttle (ID: 28)”. | “Autonomous shuttles may have technological issues, if no electricity, battery will die, and not be able to operational under hurricanes. Bad weather maybe, or an emergency person need to go by, but being locked and not able to go by or through (ID: 33)”. “If it actually had 12 people in it, then it would be hard to see outside the window to see when stop is coming up, if a wheelchair would be on there then it would cut capacity by half, the vehicle could be bigger, and the vehicle is really slow (ID: 29)”. |
Decreased Cost Narrative Examples | ||
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“Fewer carbon emissions and cost saving (ID: 116)”. “Autonomous shuttles as public transportation would help with traffic congestion (less vehicles) on parking area and reduce parking costs (ID: 58)”. | “No need to own a car. Less gas and pollution (ID:17)”. “Cost-effective (ID: 35)”. | “Save a lot of money by running 24-h services (shuttles) with no need to worry about hiring driver problem (ID: 13)”. “If autonomous shuttles are less expensive than driving, parking (i.e., route to airport) (ID: 24)”. |
Increased Cost Narrative Examples | ||
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“Higher costs of purchase costs and maintenance (ID: 33)”. “Possibly higher insurance costs and repair costs. Repairs may be harder to get in rural areas (ID: 43)”. | “Cost, repair cost, insurance cost (ID: 82)”. “Might require a lot of testing and expensive technology, making it expensive (ID: 28)”. | “Since it is still a relatively new technology, there are barriers like the expensive cost and the imperfection of the technology itself (ID: 55)”. “High cost of use (ID: 56)”. |
Narrative Examples | ||
---|---|---|
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“The use of autonomous shuttle would be route dependent (ID: 108)”. “If I had a physical handicap that prevented me from boarding the autonomous shuttle easily (ID: 106)”. “Unknown at this time. Depends upon how autonomous shuttle is deployed, fixed route or “on-demand” route (ID: 54)”. | “Convenience of routes & schedules (ID: 12)”. “More accessible transport especially for shorter trip (ID: 15)”. | “Being able to go to work, stores, visiting friends, anywhere and anytime on myself (ID: 20)”. “Greater range of travel, increased hours of operation, perhaps larger vehicles (ID: 56)”. |
Narrative Examples | ||
---|---|---|
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“Aging and loss of ability to drive (ID: 81)”. “Declining driving skills with age (ID: 42)”. “I am 82 years old and one day I will give up driving. Autonomous shuttle is safer than many drivers (ID: 49)”. | “Autonomous shuttles will increase mobility of elderly populations (ID: 6)”. “Age-related decline in driving skills (ID: 48)”. “Continued mobility for older adults (ID: 90)”. | N/A |
Narrative Examples | ||
---|---|---|
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“Transparency of information from manufacturers, state as to incidents, and accidents and general data would promote my willingness to use autonomous shuttles (ID: 64)”. “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and related local and federal agencies’ approval (ID: 65)”. | “Bad media exposure (ID: 14)”. “If there are multiple reports of accidents and injuries from using them (ID: 10)”. “Lack of knowledge (ID: 77)”. | “Social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and public negative opinions towards autonomous shuttles (ID: 36)”. “Advertisements and news articles, magazines, consumer reports, that are truly research base and facts (ID: 52)”. |
Narrative Examples | ||
---|---|---|
Older Adults | Younger and Middle-Aged Adults | PWDs |
“More experiences on road and streets (ID: 97)”. “Experience will take trial and error (ID: 22)”. | “Positive experience using one. I like the tech (ID: 58)”. “I am a tech-savvy person. Experiences with different systems in different countries (e.g., London in England) (ID: 74)”. “Rough ride with hard braking, discomfort, unsafe (ID: 40)”. “I am open now that I had tried an autonomous shuttle ride (ID: 91)”. | “Study like this, having the experience to ride and ask questions (ID: 20)”. “Well, now that I have ridden, I have a better idea what to expect. I like knowing what to expect so actually riding it helped (ID: 55)”. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hwangbo, S.W.; Stetten, N.E.; Wandenkolk, I.C.; Li, Y.; Classen, S. Lived Experiences of People with and without Disabilities across the Lifespan on Autonomous Shuttles. Future Transp. 2024, 4, 27-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4010003
Hwangbo SW, Stetten NE, Wandenkolk IC, Li Y, Classen S. Lived Experiences of People with and without Disabilities across the Lifespan on Autonomous Shuttles. Future Transportation. 2024; 4(1):27-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4010003
Chicago/Turabian StyleHwangbo, Seung Woo, Nichole E. Stetten, Isabelle C. Wandenkolk, Yuan Li, and Sherrilene Classen. 2024. "Lived Experiences of People with and without Disabilities across the Lifespan on Autonomous Shuttles" Future Transportation 4, no. 1: 27-45. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4010003