Understanding public attitudes to new technologies

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Department for Transport (DfT) appointed Accent and ITS Leeds to conduct qualitative research using deliberative techniques to explore public acceptability of new and emerging transport technologies.

Background

Transport technologies have an important role to play in improving road safety and security as well as offering many other potential benefits to motorists. The areas of technology focused on in this research are:

Databases
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
Electronic Vehicle Identification (EVI)
Global Positioning System (GPS).

Objectives

The overall aim of the project was to support policy makers in their decision-making by providing a detailed understanding of public resistance to and acceptance of emerging transport-related technologies, as well as developing methodologies for research in this area.

The key objectives of the study were to provide:

an understanding of public response to the selected technologies
policy relevant guidance and analysis on the underlying issues that shape acceptance, resistance, or indifference to new transport technologies
insight into the kinds of qualitative/deliberative methods used, reporting on findings and making recommendations for future research and potential common methodologies.

Methodology

Qualitative research using deliberative techniques was considered to be the most appropriate approach to meet the research objectives, enabling an exploration of current behaviour and attitudes and helping to determine how participants would be likely to react to key information.

An initial literature review conducted by ITS Leeds was followed by deliberative group discussions conducted by Accent across England, Scotland and Wales. The groups were sampled to include a cross-section of the UK population and comprised of different age groups, men and women, different socio economic groups, drivers and passengers, people in urban and rural locations, and different ethnic groups. Eighteen groups of participants took part in two 90-minute focus group sessions. Fourteen groups were reconvened after either one week or two weeks, with four participant groups (involving younger participants) meeting for two sessions on the same day. Reconvened groups were used to acquire a more detailed understanding of attitudes to transport technologies than would be possible in a single discussion group lasting 90 minutes.

The participants were involved in three stages comprising a pre-task exercise and two focus group sessions.

Analysis

The analysis process involved a thorough review of the group tapes and transcripts to identify key themes, explore similarities and differences between and across the groups and identify supporting quotes. As themes emerged from the data any evidence that could, potentially, challenge the findings was sought within the data.

Deliberative material

Information was provided on the technologies to see whether – and to what extent – such information might modify attitudes towards the technologies.

In summary, the deliberative material comprised three sections:

the four technology fact sheets used in the initial session and an additional fact sheet on mobile phone technology;
a case study describing a ‘real life’ situation where the technologies could play a part;
a collection of articles drawn from the national press and Internet relating to the technologies, put together in a newsletter format. Two versions of the newsletter were drawn up, one having a more negative slant than the other. Half the participants in each group were given one version and half the other to measure the influence of the material.

Summary of findings

Awareness of technology

Employment was found to be a strong influence on technological literacy, with those participants who had more experience of using it through their work being more familiar with different types of technology.

There was mixed awareness of the different technologies presented:

GPS was the most familiar technology with participants mentioning in-vehicle navigation devices and new features in mobile phones, though participants had little personnel experience of using it.
Most participants were aware of the uses of ANPR in petrol stations or in safety cameras but were less knowledgeable of how the technology worked in practice and other potential uses such as detecting uninsured vehicles.
EVI was the least familiar technology and as a result was more likely to be viewed with suspicion than the other technologies. The unfamiliarity also led some participants to think it would have additional functionality that was not possible without combining it with other technologies. This highlights the difficulties experienced in comprehending technical information.

Driving behaviour

Attitude towards driving strongly influenced acceptance of the different technologies presented. Those participants who were more likely to comply with traffic regulations, such as speeding and driving through red lights, were generally more positive towards technology that could be implemented to enforce them.

Privacy

Concerns about privacy were raised in response to the different technologies in all groups. This was a strongly held view by participants who considered their car to be a personal, private space but was of less concern to those who felt that vehicles are generally driven in public spaces and are therefore not private. A small minority of the participants believed that the technologies might result in a breach of civil liberty but these views did not extend to discussions about trip suppression.

Functionality

One of the biggest concerns raised by participants was the potential for the technologies under discussion to be used for a wide range of different purposes from those originally intended, such as road pricing, and that their functionality could be extended with greater ease following installation.
Discussions about increasing both the number and types of transport technologies used evoked feelings of injustice for some participants. They believed that this would result in a corresponding increase in the number of 'ordinary, law-abiding drivers' being caught for minor traffic infringements whilst other drivers committing more serious traffic offences would avoid detection through the tampering of equipment or the use of false number plates.
There were also positive reactions to potential benefits, such as ensuring speeding penalties could not be transferred to other drivers, and a number of participants mentioned the loss of privacy may be needed to address specific issues such as terrorism. Overall, most participants viewed the technologies as acceptable as long as they did not negatively impact upon them personally.
Although information was given about how the technologies worked there was uncertainty on how they would be implemented in reality. There was doubt about the capability to constantly monitor all vehicles and whether or not this was the intention. Lack of confidence and trust in the government to deliver a well implemented system was also raised and examples of reports in the press about poorly managed government projects were cited.

Cost

Participants expected that the cost of implementing new transport technologies would be high and questioned how the money would be raised to support it. These concerns were exacerbated by a common view amongst the participants that safety cameras are primarily used to raise revenue and that the main purpose of using the technologies presented in the research would be to implement road pricing. However, participants would be more accepting if it was clear that monies raised through road safety measures were reinvested into road and traffic improvements.
In general, participants assumed that they would have to pay for the installation of any in-vehicle equipment if it became a requirement. This became more acceptable if the technologies installed had a related benefit, such as a reduction in insurance costs, though the likelihood of reduced transport costs was considered to be low.

Environment and health

Environmental or health impacts were not spontaneously mentioned by the participants. When prompted to consider this in more depth there were few concerns. Participants made comparisons to mobile phone technology and were generally accepting of any health risks. Only one group expressed concerns about impacts on the streetscape with most other participants preferring any enforcement technologies to be visible so that people would know where they are.

Data storage

In considering the types of data that may need to be stored in transport related databases some participants assumed that personal data far beyond driver and vehicle details would be stored. This was partly due to the belief that a great deal of personal data is already stored by a number of different types of organisations such as banks, supermarkets, and mobile phone companies. Those participants who had more experience of technology, either through work or use of the internet, were less concerned about data storage and saw it as a part of everyday life.
When discussing the security of and access to data, again, it was those participants with greatest familiarity of technology that were less concerned about possible breaches of security. The Data Protection Act was mentioned as an adequate safeguard of data but there were some participants that believed there was still potential for unauthorised access to information. Some participants were anxious about the accuracy of any data held and that they would want access to individual records held about them to be able to review it and correct any inaccuracies.
Views on the length of time data should be stored for varied depending on the type of information being discussed. Vehicle information, including tax and insurance, was thought to need continuous storage and updating whereas information about driver behaviour, such as compliance with traffic regulations and vehicle location, was not. Participants felt that driver behaviour data should be held for as short a time as possible. Reasons for this stemmed from the concern that data should be stored for no longer than was appropriate for its context of use to ensure that it would not be used for other purposes. In addition, there was also a belief that the longer data was stored the greater the chance there would be a breach of security.

Administration of technologies

Despite participants knowing and accepting the technology supporting their mobile phones, none of the participants wanted a mobile phone or other private company to be involved in the managing of transport technologies or storing of transport data collected. The main reasons supporting this view were concerns about cost and privacy. People felt that private organisations would be driven by profit and commercial contracts have to be re-tendered and sometimes companies merge or get taken over, which could compromise confidentiality.
Interestingly, when asked to state which organisation they trusted the most from a number of organisations, the Police, who participants viewed as needing the most access to transport data, and the Government were chosen by the majority of participants despite earlier unprompted mentions of mistrust in both. Some participants specified the Civil service should manage the technologies and others thought that a dedicated body be set up to manage them.
Whoever was responsible for the implementation and management of the technologies participants said that they should be independent, properly regulated and audited to be seen as being trust worthy.

Degrees of acceptance and rejection

Among participants there were seven levels of acceptance of the technologies.

Absolute Rejecters

for this group, concerns regarding intrusions into personal privacy and a breach of civil liberties overrode all other considerations

Thoughtful Rejecters

this group was concerned about the security of data, the cost of implementation, the potential for misuse and a perceived associated reduction in police presence
they were also concerned about performance; they say the government has a poor track record in technology Absolute Accepters
this group simply considers that drivers who have not done anything wrong have nothing to worry about

Thoughtful Accepters

this group uses on-line banking or shops on-line and embraces technology
they think it is the future and a good use of technology – a better, more efficient use of resources that will free up police time
they tend to the view that we are already watched so much and there is already so much data held about us, there is no reason to reject these new uses of technology

Partial Rejecters/Accepters

this group is not concerned by issues of privacy but its members are more egocentric; they see the benefit in catching uninsured drivers and penalising dangerous drivers (more dangerous than themselves), so long as they personally are not caught for what they consider to be minor traffic offences

Resigned Accepters

this group feels the technologies will be introduced anyway and that there is nothing to be done to prevent it

Unengaged

this group, which was small, genuinely does not consider the issues and has no view one way or the other.

Most of the participants were either Partial Rejecters/Accepters or Thoughtful Rejecters.