To encourage appropriate use of driving automation, we need to understand and monitor driver's trust and risk perception. We examined (1) how trust and perceived risk are affected by automation, driving conditions and experience and (2) how well perceived risk can be inferred from behaviour and physiology at three levels: over traffic conditions, aggregated risk events, and individual risk events. 30 users with and without automation experience drove a Toyota Corolla with driving support. Safety attitude, subjective ratings, behaviour and physiology were examined. Driving support encouraged a positive safety attitude and active driver involvement. It reduced latent hazards while maintaining saliently perceived risks. Drivers frequently overruled lane centring (3.1 times/minute) and kept their feet on or above the pedals using ACC (65.8% of time). They comfortably used support on curvy motorways and monotonic and congested highways but less in unstable traffic and on roundabouts. They trusted the automation 65.4%, perceived 36.0% risk, acknowledged the need to monitor and would not engage in more secondary tasks than during manual driving. Trust-in situation reduced 2.0% when using automation. It was 8.2% higher than trust-in-automation, presumably due to driver self-confidence. Driving conditions or conflicts between driver and automation did not affect trust-in-automation. At the traffic condition level, physiology showed weak and partially counter-intuitive effects. For aggregated risk events, skin conductance had the clearest response but was discernible from baseline in < 50%. Pupil dilation and heart rate only increased with strong braking and active lane departure assist. For individual risk events, a CNN classifier could not identify risk events from physiology. We conclude that GSR, heart rate and pupil dilation respond to perceived risk, but lack specificity to monitor it on individual events.

The present online study surveyed drivers of SAE Level 2 partially automated cars on automation use and attitudes towards automation. Respondents reported high levels of trust in their partially automated cars to maintain speed and distance to the car ahead (M = 4.41), and to feel safe most of the time (M = 4.22) on a scale from 1 to 5. Respondents indicated to always know when the car is in partially automated driving mode (M = 4.42), and to monitor the performance of their car most of the time (M = 4.34). A low rating was obtained for engaging in other activities while driving the partially automated car (M = 2.27). Partial automation did, however, increase reported engagement in secondary tasks that are already performed during manual driving (i.e., the proportion of respondents reporting to observe the landscape, use the phone for texting, navigation, music selection and calls, and eat during partially automated driving was higher in comparison to manual driving). Unsafe behaviour was rare with 1% of respondents indicating to rarely monitor the road, and another 1% to sleep during partially automated driving. Structural equation modeling revealed a strong, positive relationship between perceived safety and trust (β = 0.69, p = 0.001). Performance expectancy had the strongest effects on automation use, followed by driver engagement, trust, and non-driving related task engagement. Perceived safety interacted with automation use through trust. We recommend future research to evaluate the development of perceived safety and trust in time, and revisit the influence of driver engagement and non-driving related task engagement, which emerged as new constructs related to trust in partial automation.