User Requirements for Autonomous Vehicles – a Comparative Analysis of Expert and Non-expert-based Approach
DOI: 10.23919/aeitautomotive50086.2020.9307415
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This paper addresses the challenge of defining unified user requirements for autonomous vehicles (AVs), specifically focusing on the critical "Request to Intervene" (RtI) scenarios where drivers must resume control. Motivated by the lack of a single set of requirements acceptable to all users and the need to improve road safety, the study compares the priorities of automotive experts against those of non-experts. The research aims to extract, rank, and compare these requirements to inform the development of the Trustonomy framework, ensuring that automated driving systems align with diverse user expectations and motivations. The methodology employed a two-iteration comparative analysis using Q-methodology and the MoSCoW prioritization technique. In the first iteration, 85 automotive experts from various domains (e.g., risk analysts, driver trainers) participated in a Q-sort experiment to rank 32 statements regarding AV features. Factor analysis of their responses identified three distinct expert perspectives: "Suspicious Controllers" (prioritizing driver accountability and preventing misuse), "Cognitively Concerned" (focusing on alertness, distraction, and haptic warnings), and "Information Seekers" (emphasizing Human-Machine Interface clarity and pre-training). In the second iteration, 50 non-expert participants from a public transport congress evaluated 25 selected requirements using a Likert scale, which were then mapped to MoSCoW priorities (Must, Should, Could, Would). The results revealed significant divergences between expert and non-expert priorities. While experts often categorized certain Driver State Monitoring (DSM) features as "Should" or "Could" have, non-experts frequently rated them as "Must" have. For instance, non-experts insisted that DSM technologies must detect if a driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol before control handover, whereas experts were willing to postpone this requirement. Similarly, non-experts prioritized Human-Machine Interface (HMI) interoperability and customizability as essential ("Must"), whereas experts viewed these as secondary. Conversely, experts placed higher importance on assessing the quality of driver intervention performance, a concept non-experts considered less critical. Both groups agreed on the necessity of basic DSM functions, such as detecting driver position and status, and HMI features that clearly indicate automation mode. The significance of this study lies in its demonstration that a one-size-fits-all approach to AV user requirements is insufficient. The findings highlight that non-experts often demand stricter safety and monitoring features than industry experts anticipate, particularly regarding impairment detection and interface usability. This discrepancy suggests that AV developers must account for broader societal expectations and varying levels of trust to ensure acceptance. The extracted requirements provide a foundational dataset for the Trustonomy project, emphasizing the need for personalized systems that can adapt to different user profiles and priorities to facilitate safe and effective human-machine handovers.
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | Crossref | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-18 |
| archive | success | unpaywall | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-25 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-26 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| enrich | success | openalex | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-18 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 6 | 2026-06-20 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Synthesis & Review: research agenda
- Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework