This study applies an extended version of one of the most popular technology acceptance models, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2), to predict user acceptance of SAE Level 3 conditional automated driving among more than 9,000 car drivers from nine European and non-European countries. We extend the model by two factors, trust and teaming, that we consider pivotal for user acceptance of conditional automated driving. We also investigate the factors impacting the determinants of acceptance and use of conditional automated driving, addressing a well-known gap in research. In this study we find that 40% of respondents did not intend to buy, and 39% of respondents did not express an intention to use conditional automated driving when available. 71% of respondents indicated a preference to stay engaged in the driving task to respond to requests from the car to resume manual control. The structural equation modeling analysis revealed that performance expectancy is the strongest predictor of driver’s behavioral intentions to use conditional automated driving, followed by trust and social influence. Contrary to common beliefs positioning trust as one of the most influential drivers of user acceptance of AVs, the influence of trust on behavioral intention to use conditional automated driving is small. The availability of facilitating conditions supporting the use conditional automated driving (e.g., knowledge, getting help from friends, family, or car dealers) has a small influence on the acceptance of AVs. We also found significant effects of the factors impacting the determinants of acceptance and use. The effect of performance expectancy on hedonic motivation is positive, suggesting that the perceived usefulness positively enhances the perceived enjoyment. Similarily, the effect of social influence on performance expectancy and trust is positive, suggesting the social network of the individual plays an important role in promoting positive beliefs about the effectiveness of the technology and trust in the technology. Access to participation in the questionnaire was limited to respondents with access to internet, which is why future research should be performed with respondents without internet accessibility to examine differences in attitudes and conditional automated driving acceptance between these internet-affine and less internet-affine groups.

Objective: To investigate pedestrians’ misuse of an automated vehicle (AV) equipped with an external human–machine interface (eHMI). Misuse occurs when a pedestrian enters the road because of uncritically following the eHMI’s message. Background: Human factors research indicates that automation misuse is a concern. However, there is no consensus regarding misuse of eHMIs. Methods: Sixty participants each experienced 50 crossing trials in a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) simulator. The three independent variables were as follows: (1) behavior of the approaching AV (within-subject: yielding at 33 or 43 m distance, no yielding), (2) eHMI presence (within-subject: eHMI on upon yielding, off), and (3) eHMI onset timing (between-subjects: eHMI turned on 1 s before or 1 s after the vehicle started to decelerate). Two failure trials were included where the eHMI turned on, yet the AV did not yield. Dependent measures were the moment of entering the road and perceived risk, comprehension, and trust. Results: Trust was higher with eHMI than without, and the −1 Group crossed earlier than the +1 Group. In the failure trials, perceived risk increased to high levels, whereas trust and comprehension decreased. Thirty-five percent of the participants in the −1 and +1 Groups walked onto the road when the eHMI failed for the first time, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion: eHMIs that provide anticipatory information stimulate early crossing. eHMIs may cause people to over-rely on the eHMI and under-rely on the vehicle-intrinsic cues. Application: eHMI have adverse consequences, and education of eHMI capability is required.