IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

IATSS Research

Research article

The public's understanding of the functionality and limitations of

automatic braking in Japan
Kan Shimazaki a,⁎, Tasuku Ito b, Ai Fujii c, Toshio Ishida d
a
Waseda University, Faculty of Human Sciences, 2-579-15, Mikajima, Tokorozawa City, Japan
b
Saitama Prefecture, Japan
c
Graduate School of Human Sciences, Waseda University, 359-1192 Tokorozawa City, Japan
d
Nihon University, College of Industrial Technology, 275-8575 Narashino City, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Automated driving systems are increasingly widespread in the automotive industry. To operate automobiles that
Received 17 February 2017 are assisted by such systems, drivers must correctly understand their functionality and limitations. Hence, focus-
Received in revised form 31 October 2017 ing on the rapidly spreading technology of automated braking, this study seeks to clarify the general public's un-
Accepted 9 November 2017
derstanding of automatic braking systems. A total of 210 Japanese people responded to a questionnaire regarding
Available online 22 November 2017
how automatic brakes are operated, how they work, when they disengage, and so on. The proportion of those
Keywords:
who misunderstood the operation of the system is not especially high, but there were a certain percentage of
Automatic braking people who had misconceptions; e.g., some believed that automatic braking could detect pedestrians or bicycles.
Public understanding Moreover, respondents were under the impression that drivers cannot readily disengage automatic braking sys-
Functionality limitations tems. If they mistakenly use the automatic brake, there is a possibility of posing a risk to the road transportation
Questionnaire system.
© 2017 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
In recent years, a variety of automated driving systems have been
implemented, and they continue to be installed in many commercial ve-
hicles. The USA's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration clas-
sifies the degree of vehicle automation into six levels (ranging from 0
to 5) based on the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) international
definitions [1]. Automated systems can handle all driving functions
under certain conditions at Level 4 and under all conditions at Level 5,
but at Levels 1–3 (the current stage of practical application), they can
only assist the driver, who remains in primary control of the vehicle.
When driving with assistance from such systems, it is essential for
drivers to correctly understand their limitations and how errors can
arise in their operation. If not, drivers may fail to predict the behavior
of these systems, or assume they operate under conditions in which
they do not. The possibility of neither the driver nor the system taking
action is especially dangerous because the former assumes the latter
has a certain feature that is not present.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15
Mikajima, Tokorozawa City, Saitama, Japan.
E-mail addresses: shimazakikan@gmail.com (K. Shimazaki), mi6theuk@toki.waseda.jp
(T. Ito), fujii.ai@nihon-u.ac.jp (A. Fujii), ishi@waseda.jp (T. Ishida).
Peer review under responsibility of International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.
The crash of China Airlines Flight 140 at Nagoya Airport was con-
cluded to have been caused by operating conflicts between the piloting
staff and the onboard automated systems [2]. This demonstrates that
even well-trained, professional pilots can fail to completely understand
the functionality and limitations of automated systems. The automated
systems installed in automobiles are not as complex as those in aircraft;
however, drivers receive fewer hours of training than pilots do, and the
vast majority of drivers are non-professionals. Therefore, it would be
improper to presume that all drivers have a correct understanding of
the functionality and limitations of automated systems. This back-
ground suggests that designers of automated systems need to know
how well the vast majority of current drivers understand the function-
ality and limitations of such automated systems.
To date, several polls on automated systems have been conducted.
Bekiaris et al. [3] surveyed user needs and their acceptance of technolo-
gy that could assist drivers who were impaired. A questionnaire was
conducted on 407 people in nine European countries. The survey re-
vealed that most users would welcome being warned by a supportive
assistance system, but would not accept automatic driving. Howard &
Dai [4] investigated public attitudes toward self-driving cars using the
responses of 107 likely adopters in Berkeley, California, as a case
study. They discovered that individuals are most attracted to potential
safety benefits, the convenience of not having to find parking, and ame-
nities such as multitasking while en route. Payre et al. [5] analyzed a
priori acceptability, attitudes, personality traits, and intention to use a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2017.11.002
0386-1112/© 2017 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
222 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229
fully automated vehicle among 421 French drivers. It was found that
68.1% accepted fully automated driving, and the predictors of intention
to use a fully automated car were mainly attitudes, contextual accept-
ability, and interest in impaired driving, followed by driving-related
sensation seeking (all variables had a positive β) and gender (male
had stronger intention). Schoettle & Sivak [6,7] examined public opin-
ion regarding self-driving-vehicle technology among 1533 individuals
in the US, UK, and Australia. Most respondents were positive regarding
the technology, and had high expectations about its benefits. However,
they expressed significant concern regarding security issues and self-
driving vehicles not performing as competently as actual drivers.
Cyganski et al. [8] examined user acceptance and the perceived advan-
tages of automated vehicles on the basis of four specific cases within
the course of a quantitative online survey in Germany. The survey re-
vealed that perceived benefits were primarily window gazing and
relaxing, whereas the possibility of working seemed to be less valued.
Kyriakidis et al. [9] conducted surveys on 5000 people living in different
countries, and examined how variables such as residential area, age,
gender, and personality influenced their acceptance of automated cars,
concerns, and purchase motivation. These studies clarify the public's ac-
ceptance, concern, willingness, and popularization forecast regarding
automation systems. Little research, however, has investigated how sat-
isfactorily the public comprehend the functionality and limitations of
automated systems.
The aim of this research is not to clarify the acceptance, concern,
willingness, and popularization forecast of the public regarding automa-
tion systems. Rather, our aim is to clarify what people consider automat-
ed systems are able to do (or not do). In other words, we attempt to
elucidate the probability of automatic braking misuse. Wahlström
[10], who investigated whether Finnish citizens would accept the auto-
mation of Helsinki Metro, is one of the few researchers to question the
public understanding of an automated system. In this research, question
items enquired as to whether “Sensors may cause problems (vandal-
ism/unnecessary stops)” and “It is unknown how the sensors will
work in harsh Finnish weather conditions.” These question items ex-
plore how well people understand the behavior of the automated sys-
tem. However, opinions on automation between railway passengers
and car drivers should be fundamentally different. Passengers do not di-
rectly interact with the Metro's automated system. Conversely, the driv-
er must cooperate with the automation system, at least below Level 3 of
the SAE. A survey conducted by Continental AG in Germany, China,
Japan, and the US [11] indicated that several people doubted the reli-
ability of the automated driving function. However, it only questioned
“reliability” in general, not which specific automation system functions
were reliable.
To address this gap in the literature, the present study focuses on au-
tomatic braking, a technology that has spread rapidly in recent years
and has received significant media coverage. Automatic braking sys-
tems are considered to contribute greatly to safety, more so than other
automated systems like lane-keeping and preceding-vehicle-following
technologies. Recent years have seen these systems continuing to
spread from cars to large vehicles like trucks and buses; in Japan,
there is a movement to mandate that all new cars be equipped with
the technology. Thus, we can expect automatic braking systems to be-
come more prevalent and improve over time. In this study, we attempt
to clarify the public's understanding of automatic braking systems. By
doing so, it will be possible to provide automobile developers with valu-
able information such as predictions of misuse. In addition, this knowl-
edge can direct the extent to which car dealers should explain the
technology to purchasers. Furthermore, it guides policy makers on
how much technical information should be provided to the public.
There is a notion that only the drivers who use cars would under-
stand the function of automatic braking. Based on this notion, it might
be thought that only licensed drivers should participate in this survey.
However, traffic behavior in the road transport system is interactive.
This includes the process of predicting the movement of other drivers.
Moreover, while predicting the movement of others, not only drivers
but also pedestrians and cyclists who do not have a license but use the
road transportation system should be taken into account. Pedestrians
and cyclists will not be able to predict the movement of cars without
an accurate understanding of automatic brakes. Therefore, we believe
that the survey on the functional understanding of automatic braking
should cover all road-using citizens. As we seek to reveal the percep-
tions of these systems held by society as a whole, we enrolled partici-
pants regardless of whether they held a driver's license. As a result,
approximately 15% of survey respondents did not hold a driver's license.
Given this background, the research questions were as follows: (1)
What proportion of people believe that automatic braking has features
that do not actually exist? (2) What proportion of people believe that
automatic braking does not have features that do actually exist?
2. Research design
2.1. Automated systems of interest
This study focuses on the automatic emergency braking (AEB) sys-
tem. An explanation of the AEB system can be found on the NHTSA
and EURO NCA websites. Using radar and cameras, an AEB system de-
tects obstacles ahead of the host vehicle (and, in some cases, behind
and to the side of it), and automatically applies the vehicle's brakes if
necessary. Some systems brake until the vehicle comes to a complete
stop; others only slow down to reduce the impact of collision, without
coming to a halt. AEB systems vary from manufacturer to manufacturer
in terms of not only their product names, but also how they detect ob-
stacles, what obstacles they can detect, and the operating speeds at
which they function (see appendix). People may be able to name specif-
ic automotive manufacturers and product names, but very few have an
accurate understanding of the details of the different automatic braking
systems. Accordingly, we decided to investigate general perceptions of
AEB as a technology, rather than those of specific manufacturers or
products. The Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
uses the official name “Collision damage mitigation braking” for AEB.
However, ordinary people refer to AEB as “automatic braking,” and
this name is also used in advertisements. Therefore, in this study, we
use the term “automatic braking” for AEB. Our survey asked participants
about their perceptions of this technology using the term “automatic
braking systems,” without explaining the above methodological
consideration.
2.2. Survey participants & survey period
To develop a braking system that ensures adequate braking force re-
gardless of how hard the driver steps on the brake pedal, it is necessary
to clarify the distribution of the treading force of several people and de-
sign it to suit weak treading forces. The purpose of this research follows
a similar logical structure. To develop an automatic braking system that
is safe for anyone to use, it may be necessary to clarify the distribution of
understanding of many people and develop the system according to the
person with the weakest understanding. At the same time, such data
also provide an estimate of how much education drivers require. For
this reason, our research targets many people. Therefore, detailed inter-
views of small groups of people were not conducted.
Our survey was conducted in Japan through Macromill Inc., a com-
pany that provides internet survey services. Macromill Inc. is one of
the largest internet research companies in Japan, with 2.3 million survey
monitors registered. Survey participants were 20 years of age and older.
People working in the automotive industry were excluded, including
automobile manufacturers, dealers, and automotive repair servicers, be-
cause these people may be more familiar with the function of automatic
braking systems than the general public. In total, 210 participants were
selected at random, consisting of 21 men and 21 women in each of the
following age groups: 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and ≥60 years old.
 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229
The number of subjects to be surveyed was determined by the research
budget. Participants were enrolled without pre-conditions on area of
residence, income, family structure, or driver's license ownership status.
In other words, survey subjects were chosen at random, excluding peo-
ple from the automobile industry. Therefore, the subjects of this survey
can be assumed to be representative of the Japanese population, except
that people without access to the Internet could not participate. In total,
84.3% (177/210) of participants held a driver's license, approximately
equivalent to the rate of driver's license ownership in Japanese adults
aged 20–74 (85.8%) [12]. Participants were divided into four driver
groups based on their responses to questions about their possession of
a license and driving frequency: “Non-license holder,” “Infrequent driv-
er” (drivers who rarely drive at all), “Weekend driver” (drivers who
drive 1–2 days a week), and “Heavy user” (drivers who drive ≥3 days
a week). Table 1 summarizes the number of individuals and gender
breakdown of each driver group. The survey period was February
2015. Survey data received from Macromill Inc. were anonymized to
make it impossible for researchers to contact the participants. This
study was granted a waiver by the Waseda University Ethics Committee
and did not require ethical approval.
2.3. Questionnaire contents
First, participants were asked whether their car was equipped with
an automatic braking system, and whether they had seen a demonstra-
tion of, or taken a test drive or ride in, a car equipped therewith. Partic-
ipants were also asked whether they had encountered information
related to automatic braking systems before, with separate questions
for different media sources of information (TV commercials, newspaper
advertisements, the Internet, the news, and friends/acquaintances; see
Table 2). These questions were asked to clarify the extent to which sur-
vey subjects were exposed to information about automatic brakes.
Automatic braking is a substitute for part of conventional driving be-
havior. Therefore, users of the automatic braking system will think that
automatic braking works in a manner similar to the driver's behavioral
model. Moreover, a vehicle equipped with an automated system is in a
state where two operators, a driver and an automation system, are on
board. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the extent to which the driver
can trust the automated system. In addition, it is necessary to clarify
which operator is considered to be given priority if there is a mismatch
between the decision of the driver and the automated system. Based on
these points, the following nine question items asked about what auto-
matic braking systems detect (Questions on “hazard perception” of the
driving behavior model), five questions asked about how they operate
(Questions on “operation” of the driving behavior model including in-
formation presentation), three questions asked about conditions
under which they are not engaged (Questions related to priority), and
three questions asked about system malfunctions (Questions about
the “accuracy of judgment” of the driving behavior model). Finally, par-
ticipants were asked whether the presence of an automatic braking sys-
tem made them feel relieved, whether it made them inattentive, and
whether they believed all vehicles should be equipped with such sys-
tems (Questions about user trust of the system). Participants responded
to all 23 items with one of six responses: Strongly disbelieve, Moderate-
ly disbelieve, Slightly disbelieve, Slightly believe, Moderately believe,
and Strongly believe.
Table 1
Attributes and numbers of survey respondents.
Attribute Notation (for multiple comparisons) Men Women
Non-license holders N (No license) 15 18
People who rarely drive I (Infrequent driver) 15 30
People who drive 1–2 d/wk W (Weekend driver) 36 26
People who drive ≥3 d/wk H (Heavy user) 39 31
Unit = people.
223
The question items were determined by discussion between the au-
thor and co-authors. Before starting this investigation, we asked several
people who were unaware of the research purpose to answer the ques-
tions in order to ascertain whether the questions items could be
understood.
3. Results
Table 2 presents data on the respondents' experiences driving and
riding in vehicles with automatic braking systems, and their exposure
to information concerning such systems. Few respondents had an auto-
matic braking system in their own car (6.2%), whereas 10.0% had seen a
demonstration or test-driven or ridden in such a vehicle. In total, 15.8%
of respondents answered “Yes” to at least one of these two items. A rel-
atively high percentage of respondents had encountered information
about automatic braking systems. The medium responsible for the sin-
gle highest exposure rate was television commercials, followed in de-
scending order by the news, the Internet, newspaper advertisements,
and friends/acquaintances. In total, 86.3% of respondents answered
that they had heard about automatic braking through at least one
medium.
We analyzed the 23 six-choice question items according to the fol-
lowing procedure. First, we created histograms using individual re-
sponses to the six-choice items (Strongly disbelieve through Strongly
believe; Fig. 1). Next, we calculated the average response value and
standard deviation for each question item. We assigned point values
to responses as follows: Strongly disbelieve = −2.5, Moderately disbe-
lieve = −1.5, Slightly disbelieve = −0.5, Slightly believe = 0.5, Mod-
erately believe = 1.5, Strongly believe = 2.5. This scale set the
median response value at zero, midway between Slightly disbelieve
and Slightly believe. Accordingly, the positive and negative average re-
sponse scores indicate that respondents generally believed and
disbelieved, respectively, the associated statement (Table 3, Column 2).
We next conducted a two-way ANOVA for each question item to
check for differences in responses due to personal characteristics. The
response value was used as the dependent variable, and the gender
and driver groups in Table 1 were used as the two factors. The main ef-
fects of the driver group on response values that reached statistical sig-
nificance were further analyzed using multiple comparisons (Table 3,
Columns 3–4). There were no significant interactions between driver
group and gender. To check for age-related differences, we also con-
ducted correlation analysis to identify significant correlations between
age and response value (Table 3, Column 5).
For the final three items (whether the presence of an automatic
braking system made participants feel relieved, whether it made them
inattentive, and whether they believed all vehicles should be equipped
with such systems), we hypothesized that participants' responses
would be influenced by their knowledge and perceptions of automatic
braking systems as measured by question items 1–20. To confirm, we
conducted three multiple regression analyses using a stepwise method,
each using the response score for one of these three items as the depen-
dent variable and the response score for items 1–20 as explanatory var-
iables (Table 4).
Table 3 shows survey results for individual questions. For the ques-
tion about what automatic braking systems detect, the majority of re-
spondents answered that automatic braking systems are engaged
when they detect preceding vehicles (68.6%), stopped cars ahead
(84.3%), and walls (76.7%). In contrast, few believed they could detect
cars coming from the side of the vehicle (21.9%), smoke (13.8%), stop
signs (11.4%), or red signal lights (17.1%). More people believed that au-
tomatic braking systems do not detect bicycles (37.1%) or pedestrians
(42.9%) than disbelieved, but these items received more affirmative re-
sponses than did the items for stop signs (13.8%) and red lights (11.4%).
Regarding how automatic braking systems operate, overall, people
believed that automatic braking systems function by reducing the
speed of a vehicle (58.1%) and completely stopping a vehicle (63.8%);
224 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229
Table 2
Experience driving and riding in vehicles with automatic braking systems and information exposure.
Question Item Percentage responding “Yes”
Own car is equipped with AB system 6.2%
Saw demonstration/took test drive or ride 10.0%
TV commercial 78.1%
Newspaper advertisement 20.5%
Internet 24.3%
News 42.4%
Friend or acquaintance 10.0%
few believed that such systems warn the driver through sound (34.8%)
or a display (40.0%). Few respondents believed that automatic braking
systems would turn the steering wheel to avoid obstacles (16.7%).
Regarding the conditions under which automatic braking systems
are disengaged, the mean response scores for all three items were neg-
ative, indicating the public perceives it as being difficult for drivers to
disengage automatic braking systems.
In terms of false positive and false negative operations by automatic
braking systems, the mean response score was essentially zero for the
question item about false positive detections and malfunctions (i.e., au-
tomatic braking systems engaging when nothing is wrong).
The final question items asked respondents whether the presence of
an automatic braking system made them feel safer, whether it made
them inattentive, and whether they believed all vehicles should be
equipped with such systems. For the first two questions, the responses
had mean scores of essentially zero, but their distributions about the
mean were asymmetric. Few people felt strongly relieved (5.7%) or inat-
tentive (9.0%) in vehicles equipped with automatic braking systems, but
many believed they would be slightly relieved or slightly inattentive
(31.4%, 33.3%). In contrast, roughly similar numbers of respondents an-
swered that they strongly disbelieved (10.5%, 11.9%) and slightly
disbelieved (18.1%, 20.5%) these two assertions. A majority of respon-
dents (62.4%) believed that all vehicles should be equipped with such
systems; however, the variation in the response score was large.
Fig. 1. Histograms of individual responses.
Category Percentage responding “Yes” to at least one item
Driving/riding experience 15.8%
Information exposure 86.3%
Gender-related differences in response score were observed for Q13
and Q22. For both items, the female score was significantly higher than
the male score. Further, men believed more strongly than women that
such systems completely stop vehicles. Men also believed more strongly
than women that the presence of such a system would make them
inattentive.
There were significant driver group effects on the response scores
for Q12, Q13, Q14, and Q21. Compared with other groups, infrequent
drivers believed less strongly that automatic braking reduces the
speed of a vehicle, and believed more strongly that it brings vehicles
to a complete stop. Compared with non-license holders and infrequent
drivers, weekend drivers felt more strongly that automatic braking sys-
tems would not make them feel safer.
There were significant correlations between response score and age
for Q13, Q18, Q19, and Q20. Younger respondents believed more strong-
ly that automatic braking systems bring vehicles to a complete halt.
Older participants estimated the risk of both false positive and false neg-
ative engagement of automatic braking system as being lower, and be-
lieved more strongly that the installation of such a system on a vehicle
would completely prevent collisions. In short, older respondents tended
to place greater trust in automatic braking.
We next investigated whether the responses to Q1–Q20 (Questions
about automatic braking knowledge) had any effect on the responses to
Q21, Q22, and Q23. Table 4 presents the results of three multiple
 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229 225

Table 3
Statistical analysis results of individual responses.

Question item Mean (SD) ANOVA main effects Correlation with age

Gender Driver group (Significance)

Questions about “hazard perception” of driving behavior model (what automatic braking systems detect)
Q1 Automatic braking systems engage when a moving car ahead is 0.53(1.39) n.s. n.s. r = 0.10 (n.s.)
detected
Q2 Automatic braking systems engage when a stopped car ahead is 1.09(1.12) n.s. n.s. r = 0.05 (n.s.)
detected
Q3 Automatic braking systems engage when a car coming from the −1.02(1.34) n.s. n.s. r = −0.02 (n.s.)
side is detected
Q4 Automatic braking systems engage when a bicycle is detected −0.44(1.48) n.s. n.s. r = 0.09 (n.s.)
Q5 Automatic braking systems engage when a pedestrian is detected −0.37(1.53) n.s. n.s. r = 0.03 (n.s.)
Q6 Automatic braking systems engage when a wall is detected 0.81(1.23) n.s. n.s. r = −0.07 (n.s.)
Q7 Automatic braking systems engage when smoke is detected −1.49(1.22) n.s. n.s. r = 0.03 (n.s.)
Q8 Automatic braking systems engage when a stop sign is detected −1.60(1.21) n.s. n.s. r = 0.05 (n.s.)
Q9 Automatic braking systems engage when a red signal light is −1.46(1.37) n.s. n.s. r = 0.06 (n.s.)
detected

Questions about “operation” of driving behavior model including information presentation (how automatic braking systems operate)
Q10 Automatic braking systems alert the driver via an audio warning if −0.62(1.4) n.s. n.s. r = 0.03 (n.s.)
an obstacle is detected
Q11 Automatic braking systems alert the driver via a display if an −0.40(1.35) n.s. n.s. r = 0.01 (n.s.)
obstacle is detected
Q12 Automatic braking systems apply the brakes to reduce speed if an 0.16(1.4) n.s. F = 3.80, p = 0.011⁎ (I b W, I b H) r = −0.12 (n.s.)
obstacle is detected
Q13 Automatic braking systems apply the brakes to completely stop 0.33(1.5) F = 5.41, p = 0.021⁎ F = 4.65, p = 0.004⁎⁎ (I N H) r = −0.13 (t = 1.98, p
the vehicle if an obstacle is detected (men b women) = 0.049⁎)
Q14 Automatic braking systems turn the steering wheel to avoid −1.41(1.28) n.s. F = 3.19, p = 0.025⁎ (n.s. on r = 0.02 (n.s.)
collision if an obstacle is detected multiple comaparison)

Questions about given priority (conditions under which automatic braking systems are disengaged)
Q15 Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is −0.65(1.27) n.s. n.s. r = 0.11 (n.s.)
accelerating
Q16 Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is braking −0.40(1.33) n.s. n.s. r = −0.03 (n.s.)
Q17 Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is turning −0.78(1.27) n.s. n.s. r = 0.00 (n.s.)
the steering wheel

Questions about the “accuracy of judgment” of driving behavior model (malfunction-related beliefs about automatic braking systems)
Q18 Automatic braking systems can accidentally engage when there is 0.08(1.42) n.s. n.s. r = −0.18 (t = 2.58, p
nothing wrong = 0.010⁎)
Q19 Automatic braking systems can fail to engage at times when they 0.43(1.41) n.s. n.s. r = −0.22 (t = 3.52, p
should b 0.001⁎⁎⁎)
Q20 Presence of an automatic braking system completely prevents −1.43(1.34) n.s. n.s. r = 0.20 (t = 3.00, p
collisions = 0.003⁎⁎)

Questions about user trust for the system (automatic braking-related emotions, behaviors, and beliefs)
Q21 Presence of an automatic braking system makes me feel safer 0.03(1.38) n.s. F = 4.22, p = 0.006⁎⁎ (N N W, r = 0.01 (n.s.)
I N W)
Q22 Presence of an automatic braking system makes me inattentive −0.07(1.42) F = 6.14, p = 0.014⁎ n.s. r = −0.10 (n.s.)
(men b women)
Q23 All vehicles should be equipped with automatic braking systems 0.38(1.48) n.s. n.s. r = 0.09 (n.s.)

Responses scored from −2.5 (Strongly disbelieve) to 2.5 (Strongly believe) in 1-point intervals.
⁎ 0.01 b p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ 0.001 b p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

regression analyses performed using the respective scores for Q21, Q22,
and Q23 as dependent variables and the scores of the other 20 items as
explanatory variables. The multiple regression analysis was applied
using a stepwise method; the table shows each variable entered, along
with each regression's β value and test statistics. In addition, the Vari-
ance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated to confirm that there were
no multiple collinearities in the three multiple regression analyses. As
a result, it was confirmed that all VIFs were b1.88 (general removal
criteria for multicollinearity is VIF ≥ 10).
The score for the “Presence of an automatic braking system makes
me feel safer” was significantly affected by three items: stronger be-
liefs that “Automatic braking systems engage when stopped cars
ahead are detected (Q2),” “Presence of an automatic braking system
completely prevents collisions (Q20),” and “Automatic braking
systems can accidentally engage when there is nothing wrong
(Q18).” There was also a marginally significant effect from the
score for “Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is
turning the steering wheel (Q17),” with a stronger belief predicting
a greater feeling of safety.
The score for the “Presence of an automatic braking system makes
me inattentive” was significantly affected by two items: stronger beliefs
that “Automatic braking systems can fail to engage at times when they
should” and “Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is
braking.” There was also a marginally significant effect from the score
for “Automatic braking systems alert the driver via a display if an obsta-
cle is detected,” with a stronger belief predicting greater inattention.
The score for “All vehicles should be equipped with an automatic
braking system” was significantly affected by three items: stronger be-
liefs that “Automatic braking systems engage when stopped cars
ahead are detected,” “Presence of an automatic braking system
completely prevents collisions,” and “Automatic braking systems alert
the driver via an audio warning if an obstacle is detected.” There were
also marginally significant effects from the scores for “Automatic brak-
ing systems apply the brakes to completely stop the vehicle if an
226 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229

Table 4
Multiple regression analysis with emotions, behaviors, and opinions as dependent variables.

Dependent variable Introduced variable Statistics

Question item β Value

Q21 Presence of an automatic braking system makes me Q2 Automatic braking systems engage when a stopped car ahead is detected 0.52*** Rsq = 0.29
feel safer Q20 Presence of an automatic braking system completely prevents collisions 0.26*** Adj. Rsq =
Q18 Automatic braking systems can accidentally engage when there is nothing −0.17** 0.28
wrong F = 20.9
Q17 Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is turning the steering 0.12† p b 0.001
wheel
Q22 Presence of an automatic braking system makes me Q19 Automatic braking systems can fail to engage at times when they should 0.19** Rsq = 0.13
inattentive Q16 Automatic braking systems do not engage if the driver is braking 0.16* Adj. Rsq =
Q11 Automatic braking systems alert the driver via a display if an obstacle is detected 0.14† 0.11
Q20 Presence of an automatic braking system completely prevents collisions 0.12 n.s. F = 7.65
p b 0.001
Q23 All vehicles should be equipped with automatic Q2 Automatic braking systems engage when a stopped car ahead is detected 0.38*** Rsq = 0.19
braking systems Q20 Presence of an automatic braking system completely prevents collisions 0.19* Adj. Rsq =
Q10 Automatic braking systems alert the driver via an audio warning if an obstacle is 0.17* 0.16
detected F = 6.83
Q13 Automatic braking systems apply the brakes to completely stop the vehicle if an 0.16† p b 0.001
obstacle is detected
Q18 Automatic braking systems can accidentally engage when there is nothing −0.11†
wrong
Q14 Automatic braking systems turn the steering wheel to avoid collision if an −0.14
obstacle is detected n.s.
Q12 Automatic braking systems apply the brakes to reduce speed if an obstacle is −0.13
detected n.s.
†
p b .1
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b .00.

obstacle is detected” and “Automatic braking systems can accidentally
engage when there is nothing wrong,” with stronger belief and disbelief
(respectively) predicting stronger belief in their necessity.
4. Discussion
The majority of survey respondents knew of the existence of auto-
matic braking systems, but their perceptions of this new technology
were constrained by a lack of user experience. A large dispersion was
observed in responses to the bicycle and pedestrian items, indicating
large variation in public perceptions. Recent years have seen an increase
in automatic braking systems that can detect pedestrians; however, this
fact does not yet appear to be well known. Fewer systems are intended
to detect bicycles than pedestrians, yet the belief that they do detect pe-
destrians and the belief that they do detect bicycles had a similar prev-
alence among respondents. There are currently no automatic braking
systems designed to detect stop signs and red lights; indeed, few re-
spondents believed that such systems detect these objects. While auto-
matic braking systems are not intentionally designed to detect smoke, it
may sometimes be erroneously detected by systems that utilize cam-
eras. (For example, the operating manual for Subaru's EyeSight™
notes the possibility of accidental system engagement due to smoke,
and recommends the system be disabled in smoky places.) However,
it appears that most participants did not consider this risk of “false pos-
itive” operations by automatic braking systems.
In reality, the automatic braking systems produced by most manu-
facturers promote driver awareness by alerting them via audio or a dis-
play; however, this fact is apparently not yet widely known. In contrast,
63.8% people believed that automatic braking systems completely stop a
vehicle rather than merely slow it down, indicating the role of such sys-
tems is perceived more strongly as bringing vehicles to a halt rather
than merely reducing their speed. If the conditions are right, some auto-
matic braking systems will indeed go so far as to stop the vehicle
completely, but others will only slow to reduce damage from a collision.
The results suggest that the public may place too much trust in the func-
tionality of such systems.
On the questions about disengaging the automatic brake, the majority
of respondents thought that the automatic braking system would not dis-
engage even in the presence of driver operation. If automatic braking is con-
sidered as a technology for ensuring safety, it is natural to assume that such
a system would operate independently of driver input. In contrast, if auto-
matic braking is considered as a technology for promoting driver aware-
ness, there is no need for it if the driver begins collision avoidance
maneuvers before the system. The fact that respondents considered auto-
matic braking systems difficult to disengage suggests that most people
hold the former belief. However, the driver is primarily in control of vehi-
cles graded as automation levels 0–2 in the SAE hierarchy; this means
that automatic braking systems in commercial vehicles are designed pri-
marily under the latter assumption. For example, Toyota's automatic brak-
ing system (Pre-Crash Safety™) specifies in its operating manual that the
system does not engage when the driver is applying the brake or making
other collision-avoidance maneuvers. Automatic braking systems should
not be designed categorically based on one or other of these assumptions.
However, automotive manufacturers would be better served by consider-
ing the two assumptions separately, and likewise user-oriented consider-
ations should not be mixed up with designer-oriented ones.
Many more people believed there was a risk of false negative detec-
tions and operational failure (i.e., automatic braking systems failing to
engage when they should). However, most participants did not consider
this risk of “false positive” operations by automatic braking systems.
These two items are in a trade-off relationship. In other words, raising
the sensitivity of an automatic braking system to prevent missed detec-
tions increases the rates of false positive detections and engagement,
whereas lowering its sensitivity to prevent erroneous detections in-
creases the rates of false negative detections and engagement. Eliminat-
ing both possibilities is considered difficult, and so drivers must be able
to envision both situations. However, our results show that the public
finds it more difficult to imagine the erroneous triggering of automated
driving systems than their failure to engage. Few respondents thought
that the presence of an automatic braking system could completely pre-
vent collisions. This indicates that respondents trusted the technology a
little, but would not put complete faith in it.
 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229
Differences in gender and driver groups suggest that interest in auto-
motive technologies is lower in people who drive infrequently, as well as
in women (compared to men). This result about gender is consistent with
previous studies indicating that men are more likely to accept automated
systems than women [5,9,13,14]. These groups may have stronger mental
images of automatic braking being for stopping rather than for reducing
speed. This result about driver groups may be the cause of Missel's [15]
findings that younger people and people who are “just not interested in
cars” were more likely than other groups to view automated vehicles pos-
itively [15].
The results for the correlations with each item and age revealed that
young people overestimated the function of automatic braking more than
older people. This can be explained by the fact that automatic braking sys-
tems capable of stopping vehicles were introduced only recently, whereas
the technology, in its infancy, could only reduce a vehicle's speed. We be-
lieve that older people's perceptions of automatic braking were strongly
shaped during an era when the technology did not bring vehicles to a com-
plete stop, whereas younger people, born later and therefore largely igno-
rant of this era, are more cognizant of this functionality. This result seems
to be closely related to the telephone survey results reported by TE Connec-
tivity [16], which revealed that younger drivers feel more comfortable with
automatic driving than elderly drivers.
It is not hard to imagine why Q1 (AB system detects stopped car
ahead), Q20 (AB system completely prevents collisions), and Q18 (AB
system can accidentally disengage; negative β) were significant in
influencing the participants' feeling of safety (Q21). The responses to
Q17 (AB systems do not engage when turning the steering wheel) indi-
cate that people enjoy a greater feeling of safety when they believe that
driver intervention can readily disengage automatic braking, and this
can be interpreted as a corollary to the anxiety drivers feel toward auto-
mated systems having primary control over driving.
The score for Q22 (AB system makes me inattentive) was significant-
ly affected by Q19 (AB systems can fail to engage at times when they
should) and Q16 (AB systems do not engage if the driver is braking).
There was also a marginally significant effect from the score for Q11
(AB systems alert the driver via a display), with a stronger belief
predicting greater inattention. At first glance, these findings appear par-
adoxical: people claim they are more inattentive both if they believe the
automatic system will often fail to engage when it should and if they be-
lieve primary driving control rests with the driver. The reason for this
observation is unclear; it is possible that the relationship between
these items is not a causal one. We posit that this inattentive tendency
may be the result of some kind of common factor making people skep-
tical of automated systems, perhaps a result of both the respondents'
personalities and their individual backgrounds (region, culture, etc.).
Items introduced into the regression of Q23 (All vehicles should be
equipped with AB systems) were the same or similar in content to
those that affected the reported feeling of safety. We hypothesize that
having high expectations of automatic braking leads drivers to believe
that most vehicles should be equipped with the systems.
Readers should exercise caution when interpreting the results of the
present study. The mean response scores were calculated such that
values greater than zero indicate belief and values less than zero indi-
cate disbelief. However, readers must bear in mind that these are mere-
ly average values. For example, none of the automatic braking systems
currently on the market can detect red signal lights. The average score
for the associated questionnaire item was − 1.46, meaning that the
vast majority of people believe that such systems do not detect red
lights. However, 2.9% of respondents strongly believed that automatic
braking systems do detect red signal lights; when the respondents
who moderately believed this statement are included, this value rises
to 7.6%. In fact, 17.9% of respondents at least slightly believed it to be
true. These were in the minority of respondents, and their misconcep-
tions would likely be rectified by the time they actually drove or rode
in a car equipped with an automatic braking system. However, it
would be a serious situation if even a minority of drivers on the road
227
assumed that automatic braking systems possessed this feature. We
can conceptualize the incredible risk of this situation by imagining a
world where even 1% of drivers on the road think that a red light
means “go.”
With technological progress, the capabilities and spread of automat-
ed systems are improving every day. People's perceptions of these sys-
tems will change as their capabilities improve, and their
understandings of their functionality and limitations will deepen with
increased opportunities for them to encounter automated systems in
real life. Therefore, we believe that researchers must continue to inves-
tigate the public's understanding of these technologies.
Overall, people having incorrect knowledge about automatic braking
systems were never in the majority. However, the proportion of those
who think “It is possible for automatic braking…” despite it actually being
impossible, or the proportion of those who think “Automatic braking will
not work with this kind of behavior” despite automatic braking actually
having such a function, are not sufficiently low. Automatic braking has dif-
ferent functions depending on the manufacturer and era; hence, we cannot
strictly specify whether a person's knowledge is correct or not. However,
the incorrect use of automatic braking is considered a risk in the road trans-
portation system, even if these cases were relatively rare.
5. Limitations
The survey was conducted over the Internet. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the respondents were completely representative of Japanese
citizens. However, in recent years, the percentage of the population
with ready access to the Internet has increased considerably, and this
problem is unlikely to have significantly affected the results.
Further, this survey only provided data on Japanese people. In Japan, the
population density is high, and the proportion of urban streets mixed with
pedestrians and bicycles is higher than in many other countries. Further, as
Japan is a global producer of cars and is economically relatively wealthy, the
exposure to information on cars equipped with new technology is high.
Therefore, the results of this research may be different in other countries,
and similar surveys should be conducted in various countries.
This problem applies not only to the differences in countries, but also
to differences in eras and generations. With age, the performance of au-
tomated systems will improve, the penetration rate will rise, and people
will have more opportunities to use them. Likewise, younger genera-
tions have been exposed to digital information technology since birth,
and their understanding may be deeper than that in other generations.
Therefore, it is necessary to continuously conduct similar surveys in the
future and to examine these changes.
As seen from the low R2 values, all three multiple regression analyses
had low explanatory power. We note that the three dependent variables
examined would be readily influenced by social desirability, possibly
lowering the explanatory power of the regression. We must be careful
to distinguish between someone self-reporting that the presence of an
automatic braking system makes them inattentive and real-world inat-
tentive behavior while driving. This topic needs to be further investigat-
ed using actual driving data and other empirical methods.
Another viable explanation for these results can be posited: the re-
sponses to these three items may only be slightly influenced by drivers'
awareness of the specific functionality of automated systems. Other fac-
tors may have been responsible instead, e.g., respondents' individual ex-
periences (their own or those of friends), exposure to reports of reduced
accident rates (due to such systems or other factors), and other ele-
ments not examined in this study.
On the other hand, this result reaffirms the value of this research,
which attempted to directly clarify the knowledge of automation sys-
tems. This is because variables such as acceptance attitudes, concerns,
and trust in automated systems, as revealed by previous studies, are
only weakly linked with the knowledge of automated systems.
At the time of the survey, the penetration rate of automatic brakes
was not especially high. Therefore, most of the participants of this
228 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229

study did not own a car equipped with automatic brakes. The penetra-
tion rate of automatic braking is gradually rising. People who own cars
with automatic brakes are likely to have better knowledge about their
operation. Even if someone owns a car equipped with automatic brakes,
incorrect knowledge could result in direct and serious danger. There-
fore, in the future, we would like to conduct a survey targeting people
who have cars equipped with automatic braking.
Drivers should have an accurate understanding of the automation
systems equipped on their cars. An accurate understanding not only re-
duces the chance of misuse, but also prompts appropriate decisions in
circumstances where there is likely to be an accident. For example, in
situations when driving through a light obstacle may prevent a collision
with another vehicle, it is generally better to drive through the obstacle.
From such a standpoint, it is also important to develop an educational
method that allows drivers to understand the functions of automation
systems correctly, including how to disable them.
indicate that the vast majority of people have an essentially correct under-
standing, with few people reporting mistaken perceptions, such as auto-
matic braking systems being able to completely prevent collisions. Few
systems are intended to detect bicycles, yet the belief that they can was
comparable in strength and spread to the belief that they can detect pedes-
trians. Respondents were under the impression that drivers cannot readily
disengage automatic braking systems, and were less concerned with such
systems falsely activating in inappropriate situations than with them failing
to activate when they should. The proportion of those who misunderstood
is not high, but there were a certain percentage of people who misunder-
stood the functions and limitations of automatic braking. If they mistakenly
use the automatic brake, there is a possibility of posing a risk to the road
transportation system. Respondents' beliefs about the functionality of auto-
matic braking had little effect on whether such systems made them feel
safer or made them inattentive, or on whether they believed all cars should
be equipped with them.

6. Conclusion
Conflicts of interest
In this study, we have investigated the public misunderstanding of the
functionality and limitations of automatic braking systems. Our results The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Functionality of automatic braking systems from major automotive manufacturers

Manufacturer: product Detection devices Compatible obstacles Operating speeds Functionality

name

Ford: active city stop™ Radar Preceding vehicle ≤50 km/h Reduce speed
GM: front automatic Proprietary Preceding vehicle ≥4 km/h Warning, vibration,
braking™ (Engages within 60 m of preceding speed reduction,
vehicle) complete stopping
Honda: collision Combined Preceding vehicle, oncoming vehicles, pedestrians ≥5 km/h (preceding vehicle) Sound, display, speed
mitigation braking millimeter-wave radar ⁎Does not detect motorcycles or bicycles 5–80 km/h (oncoming vehicles, reduction, complete
system™ (CMBS) and monocular camera pedestrians) stopping
Honda: city-brake active Proprietary Automobiles 5–30 km/h Speed reduction,
a
system™ Does not detect motorcycles or bicycles complete stopping
Mazda: smart city brake Camera Preceding vehicle, pedestrians 4–80 km/h (vehicles) Audio warning, speed
support™ (SCBS) 10–80 km/h (pedestrians) reduction
Mazda: smart brake Combined camera and Preceding vehicle ≥15 km/h Alarm, speed
support™ (SBS) millimeter-wave radar reduction
Mercedes-Benz: active Proprietary Preceding vehicle, obstacles 7–50 km/h Warning light,
brake assist™ warning sound, speed
reduction
Mercedes-Benz: Short- and Preceding vehicle, vehicles merging ahead, vehicles 7–200 km/h Warning light,
PRE-SAFE Brake™ medium-range radar, crossing path ahead, pedestrians, obstacles on road 7.2–72 km/h (‘sudden obstacle’ warning sound, speed
stereo camera detection) reduction
≤50 km/h (collision avoidance)
Mercedes-Benz: Proprietary Preceding vehicle, obstacles 7–105 km/h (preceding vehicle) Speed reduction
collision prevention 7–50 km/h (obstacles)
assist plus™ (CPA
Plus)
Nissan: forward Camera Automobiles, pedestrians 10–80 km/h Buzzer, display, speed
emergency braking™ ≤30 km/h (collision avoidance) reduction, complete
stopping
Subaru: EyeSight™ Stereo camera Automobiles (including those coming Collision avoidance at speed differentials HUD alert, speed
from the side of car) of ≤30 km/h with respect to obstacle reduction, complete
Bicycles (including “jutting out” in path of car) Damage mitigation at higher differentials stopping
Pedestrians (including those crossing path of car) Collision avoidance at speed differentials
of ≤50 km/h with respect to preceding
vehicle
Damage mitigation at higher differentials
Toyota: pre-crash safety Combined monocular Preceding vehicle, pedestrians ≥10 km/h (preceding vehicle) Buzzer, display, speed
system™ camera and 10–80 km/h (pedestrians) reduction, complete
millimeter-wave radar Collision avoidance at speed differentials stopping
of ≤40 km/h (preceding vehicle) and ≤30
km/h (pedestrians)
Volvo: city safety™ Camera, Pedestrians, bicycles (including “sudden appearance” Proprietary Warning, speed
millimeter-wave radar from the side), preceding vehicle, oncoming traffic reduction
when turning across lanes

Collected in September 2016 from details listed on each manufacturer's Japanese-language homepage.
a
Functionality does not include complete stops if “complete stopping” is not explicitly written.
 K. Shimazaki et al. / IATSS Research 42 (2018) 221–229
References
[1] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Automated Vehi-
cles Policy, Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety, https://www.nhtsa.
gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/federal_automated_vehicles_policy.pdf 2016, Accessed
date: 26 May 2017.
[2] Federal Aviation Authority Human Factors Team, The Interfaces between Flight
Crews and Modern Flight Deck Systems, http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/
techrpt/hffaces.pdf 1996, Accessed date: 5 May 2017.
[3] E. Bekiaris, S. Petica, V. Vicens, V. Portouli, C. Papakonstantinou, B. Peters, P. Artaud,
et al., SAVE system for effective assessment of the driver state and vehicle control in
emergency situations – driver needs and public acceptance of emergency control
aids. SAVE Consortium, 1–278, http://cordis.europa.eu/pub/telematics/docs/tap_
transport/save_d3.1.pdfN 1996, Accessed date: 30 September 2016.
[4] D. Howard, D. Dai, Public Perceptions of Self-Driving Cars: The Case of Berkeley,
CaliforniaPaper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting TRB, Washington, DC
http://www.danielledai.com/academic/howard-dai-selfdrivingcars.pdfN 2014
Accessed September 30, 2016.
[5] W. Payre, J. Cestac, P. Delhomme, Intention to use a fully automated car: attitudes
and a priori acceptability, Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 27 (2014)
252–263.
[6] B. Schoettle, M. Sivak, A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-Driv-
ing Vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and AustraliaMichigan, USA http://deepblue.lib.
umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/108384/103024.pdfN 2014, Accessed date:
30 September 2016.
229
[7] B. Schoettle, M. Sivak, Public Opinion about Self-Driving Vehicles in China, India,
Japan, the U.S., the U.K., and AustraliaMichigan, USA http://deepblue.lib.umich.
edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/109433/103139.pdf?sequence=1N 2014, Accessed
date: 30 September 2016.
[8] R. Cyganski, E. Fraedrich, B. Lenz, Travel-time valuation for automated driving: a
use-case-driven study, Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting, 2015.
[9] M. Kyriakidis, R. Happee, J. Winter, Public opinion on automated driving: results of
an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents, Transport. Res. F: Traffic
Psychol. Behav. 32 (2015) 127–140.
[10] M. Wahlström, How to Study Public Imagination of Autonomous Systems: The Case
of the Helsinki Automated Metro, AI & Society, 2017https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00146-017-0689-4.
[11] K. Sommer, Continental Mobility Study 2013, 2013.
[12] Cabinet Office, White Paper on Traffic Accidents and Traffic Safety Measures in 2013,
http://www8.cao.go.jp/koutu/taisaku/h26kou_haku/zenbun/genkyo/h1/h1b1s2_3.
htmlN 2014, Accessed date: 30 September 2016.
[13] S.V. Casley, A.S. Jardim, A.M. Quartulli, A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous
Cars (Bachelor of Science), Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA,
2013.
[14] J.D. Power, 2012 U.S. Automotive Emerging Technologies Study Results, 2012.
[15] J. Missel, Ipsos MORI Loyalty Automotive Survey, 2014.
[16] TE Connectivity, TE Connectivity Survey Finds Safety the Top Consumer Priority in
Adopting Autonomous Vehicle Technology, 2013.