2019
DOI: 10.34647/jmv.nr2.id13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ridepooling, Mobility-on-demand, fahrerlose Busshuttles – Zur Psychologie des Teilens von Fahrten in bedarfsgesteuerten Mobilitätskonzepten

Abstract: Geteilte, bedarfsgesteuerte Mobilitätskonzepte besitzen ein großes Potential, unsere Mobilität im urbanen als auch im ländlichen Raum grundlegend zu verändern. Bestehende Kriterien zur Messung der Servicequalität in öffentlichen Verkehrssystemen müssen in Bezug auf diese Mobilitätskonzepte reflektiert und angepasst werden, da sie deren räumliche und zeitliche Flexibilität nicht abzubilden vermögen. Der Beitrag stellt erste Forschungsergebnisse vor und leitet Thesen und weiteren Forschungsbedarf ab, die sich au… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A Level 4 and especially Level 5 AV would not need a human driver or steward, and a passenger could potentially be alone in an autonomous shuttle, which can influence perceived safety [31]. Passengers would need to trust the technology of the automated system and would have no way to speak to a human driver or steward directly.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A Level 4 and especially Level 5 AV would not need a human driver or steward, and a passenger could potentially be alone in an autonomous shuttle, which can influence perceived safety [31]. Passengers would need to trust the technology of the automated system and would have no way to speak to a human driver or steward directly.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, studies show that many people are doubtful about the reliability and safety aspects of AVs [16,30]. Autonomous shuttles of SAE Level 4 or 5 without the necessary involvement of a driver or steward can challenge perceived safety as: (1) passengers are confronted with a new technology they might be doubtful about; and (2) in usual public transport settings, people are used to having a driver as someone who can be approached for general information or can intervene in case of unexpected or unpleasant events occurring during the ride [31]. Previous research [32,33] already indicates that passengers' perceived safety in driverless shuttles is challenged due to the fact that there is no driver present (a similar finding comes from user acceptance on lack of staff on automated trains [34]).…”
Section: Perceived Safety In Avsmentioning
confidence: 99%