Balancing innovation and safety: Public preferences for autonomous vehicle testing in Australia

As connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) transition from concept to reality, governments around the world face a dual imperative to foster innovation while ensuring public safety and trust. Although regulatory frameworks are evolving to support CAV deployment, little is known about how citizens perceive the risks and benefits of different testing strategies. This study explores the preferences of the Australian public regarding where, when, and how autonomous vehicle technologies should be tested. Using a nationally representative stated preference survey of 2,993 Australians, we evaluate the trade-offs the public is willing to make between short-term safety risks and long-term technological progress. Our results reveal a cautious public stance: nearly one in five respondents oppose any testing on public roads, and a further 50% express zero tolerance for fatalities or serious injuries during testing. Preferences strongly favour testing conditions that include a human safety driver and restricted environments such as low-traffic suburban and regional areas. These findings suggest that while Australians are intrigued by the potential benefits of CAVs, these benefits must not come at the expense of safety or ethics. Citizens appear to support a phased, low-risk approach to CAV testing that closely aligns with current government policy. This study highlights the importance of incorporating public values into the governance of innovation and offers evidence that aligning technological ambition with societal expectations is crucial for building public trust in mobility policy. • A latent class choice model reveals seven distinct consumer segments for CAV adoption • Consumers prioritize safety benefits but vary in sensitivity to risk and innovation • Full automation is not universally preferred; traditional driving remains valued • Shared use and cost influence adoption less than perceived safety and control • Findings support targeted CAV policies rather than one-size-fits-all strategies