Who benefits? Australian public perceptions of safety and justice in connected and automated vehicles (CAVs)

Abstract The integration of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) into everyday mobility systems raises profound ethical and societal challenges, particularly concerning safety, justice, and the treatment of vulnerable road users (VRUs). This study examines Australian public perceptions of the fairness, safety, and legitimacy of CAV deployment, investigating how exposure to information related to ethics and justice influences acceptance and evaluative perceptions related to trust (including perceived safety, fairness, and institutional confidence). An online survey of 384 respondents (aged 18–82) employed a before-and-after design, in which respondents evaluated CAVs before and after engaging with an infographic outlining key justice and safety dilemmas. Awareness of CAVs was widespread (95.3%), primarily shaped by media narratives rather than direct experience. Whilst over half of respondents expressed optimism about the potential of CAVs to improve safety and fairness, substantial proportions raised concerns about equity, transparency, and procedural justice. Following exposure to the infographic, positive perceptions declined slightly but not significantly, suggesting that attitudes are shaped by deeper moral and institutional expectations rather than informational effects. Open-ended responses revealed recurring anxieties about affordability, infrastructure readiness, technological reliability, and governance accountability, alongside ethical concerns related to VRU prioritisation, liability, privacy, and algorithmic decision-making in critical situations. These findings highlight a cautious public stance towards automation, one that accepts its promise but questions its fairness, underscoring the need for reflexive, transparent, and participatory governance frameworks to ensure that AI-driven mobility evolves in alignment with societal values and distributive justice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
AI & Society
Published
2026-08-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03289-y
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who benefits? Australian public perceptions of safety and justice in connected and automated vehicles (CAVs)

Andry Rakotonirainy, Óscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, Laura Martinez-Buelvas, Deanna Grant-Smith
AI & Society
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
article

Who benefits? Australian public perceptions of safety and justice in connected and automated vehicles (CAVs)

Andry Rakotonirainy, Óscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, Laura Martinez-Buelvas, Deanna Grant-Smith
article en

Abstract

Abstract The integration of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) into everyday mobility systems raises profound ethical and societal challenges, particularly concerning safety, justice, and the treatment of vulnerable road users (VRUs). This study examines Australian public perceptions of the fairness, safety, and legitimacy of CAV deployment, investigating how exposure to information related to ethics and justice influences acceptance and evaluative perceptions related to trust (including perceived safety, fairness, and institutional confidence). An online survey of 384 respondents (aged 18–82) employed a before-and-after design, in which respondents evaluated CAVs before and after engaging with an infographic outlining key justice and safety dilemmas. Awareness of CAVs was widespread (95.3%), primarily shaped by media narratives rather than direct experience. Whilst over half of respondents expressed optimism about the potential of CAVs to improve safety and fairness, substantial proportions raised concerns about equity, transparency, and procedural justice. Following exposure to the infographic, positive perceptions declined slightly but not significantly, suggesting that attitudes are shaped by deeper moral and institutional expectations rather than informational effects. Open-ended responses revealed recurring anxieties about affordability, infrastructure readiness, technological reliability, and governance accountability, alongside ethical concerns related to VRU prioritisation, liability, privacy, and algorithmic decision-making in critical situations. These findings highlight a cautious public stance towards automation, one that accepts its promise but questions its fairness, underscoring the need for reflexive, transparent, and participatory governance frameworks to ensure that AI-driven mobility evolves in alignment with societal values and distributive justice.

AI & Society
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR), Queensland University of Technology (AU), University of the Sunshine Coast (AU), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Australian Government, Queensland University of Technology
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.