{"title":"自动驾驶汽车风险分布偏好的国际调查","authors":"Sebastian Krügel, Matthias Uhl","doi":"10.1016/j.tra.2025.104695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution preferences. It turns out that risk preferences in road traffic are strikingly similar between the cultural zones. The vast majority of participants in all countries exhibits intuitions whose pattern deviates from minimizing accident probabilities in favor of weighing up the probability and severity of accidents. At the national level, the consideration of accident probability and severity hardly differs between countries. The gap between collective and individual interests as expressed in the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles detected in deterministic crash scenarios seems to be weakened in risk assessments of everyday traffic situations. In no country do cyclists receive a risk bonus that goes beyond their higher vulnerability. In sum, our results suggest that the inclination to balance the probability and severity of accidents may be a moral judgment with cross-cultural spread.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49421,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","volume":"201 ","pages":"Article 104695"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An international survey on risk distribution preferences for autonomous vehicles\",\"authors\":\"Sebastian Krügel, Matthias Uhl\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tra.2025.104695\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution preferences. It turns out that risk preferences in road traffic are strikingly similar between the cultural zones. The vast majority of participants in all countries exhibits intuitions whose pattern deviates from minimizing accident probabilities in favor of weighing up the probability and severity of accidents. At the national level, the consideration of accident probability and severity hardly differs between countries. The gap between collective and individual interests as expressed in the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles detected in deterministic crash scenarios seems to be weakened in risk assessments of everyday traffic situations. In no country do cyclists receive a risk bonus that goes beyond their higher vulnerability. In sum, our results suggest that the inclination to balance the probability and severity of accidents may be a moral judgment with cross-cultural spread.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"201 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104695\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425003283\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part A-Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856425003283","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
An international survey on risk distribution preferences for autonomous vehicles
Every maneuver of a vehicle redistributes risks between road users. While human drivers do this intuitively, autonomous vehicles allow and require deliberative algorithmic risk management. But how should traffic risks be distributed among road users? In a global experimental study in eight countries with different cultural backgrounds and almost 11,000 participants, we compared risk distribution preferences. It turns out that risk preferences in road traffic are strikingly similar between the cultural zones. The vast majority of participants in all countries exhibits intuitions whose pattern deviates from minimizing accident probabilities in favor of weighing up the probability and severity of accidents. At the national level, the consideration of accident probability and severity hardly differs between countries. The gap between collective and individual interests as expressed in the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles detected in deterministic crash scenarios seems to be weakened in risk assessments of everyday traffic situations. In no country do cyclists receive a risk bonus that goes beyond their higher vulnerability. In sum, our results suggest that the inclination to balance the probability and severity of accidents may be a moral judgment with cross-cultural spread.
期刊介绍:
Transportation Research: Part A contains papers of general interest in all passenger and freight transportation modes: policy analysis, formulation and evaluation; planning; interaction with the political, socioeconomic and physical environment; design, management and evaluation of transportation systems. Topics are approached from any discipline or perspective: economics, engineering, sociology, psychology, etc. Case studies, survey and expository papers are included, as are articles which contribute to unification of the field, or to an understanding of the comparative aspects of different systems. Papers which assess the scope for technological innovation within a social or political framework are also published. The journal is international, and places equal emphasis on the problems of industrialized and non-industrialized regions.
Part A''s aims and scope are complementary to Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies and Part D: Transport and Environment. Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. The complete set forms the most cohesive and comprehensive reference of current research in transportation science.