# Modeling User Acceptance of In-Vehicle Applications for Safer Road Environment
## 2 Related Works
### Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
We reviewed related research that addresses the acceptance of any technology related to in-vehicle applications during the years 2015-2021. A part of our findings is summarized in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Context/Focus** & **Type of Study** & **Main Findings** \\ \hline Smartphone-based navigation application with a collision & \multirow{2}{*}{Real-traffic experiment} & Driver’s acceptance is attributed to \\ warning system [21] & & user attitude and \\  & & perceived usefulness. \\ \hline Lane-change collision avoidance system using a haptic & \multirow{2}{*}{Driving simulator} & Driver’s acceptance is influenced by \\  & feedback force [33] & & corresponding system design \\  & & & with expectations. \\ \hline Low emission zone and school zone alert system [15] & \multirow{2}{*}{Real-traffic experiment and questionnaire via email} & Experienced drivers have higher \\  & & via email & satisfaction level and positivity \\  & & regarding system usefulness. \\ \hline Adaptive cruise control and lane centering [34] & \multirow{2}{*}{Controlled road experiment and post-drive survey} & Driver acceptance is influenced by \\  & & post-drive survey & system functionalities. \\ \hline Collision/Risk Alerts (CR); Collision Mitigation (CM); & \multirow{2}{*}{Structured live survey} & Female drivers are more positive \\ Automatic Driving Tasks (AT); Lighting and Visibility (LV); & & toward collision avoidance features. \\  & and Miscellaneous Driving Aids (MA) [32] & & Features promoting safety are \\  & & & underutilized by drivers. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Summary of previous work related to user acceptance of in-vehicle applications. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Level** & **SAE** & **NHTSA** & **BASt** & **In-Vehicle Applications** \\ \hline
0 & No Automation & No Automation & Driver Only & Collision warning, navigation system, lane departure warning, lighting and visibility system. \\ \hline
1 & Driver Assistance & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Function-specific \\ Automation \\ \end{tabular} & Driver Assistance &
\begin{tabular}{c} Night-view assist, blind-spot assist, \\ parking sensors, driver drowsiness \\ detection, adaptive cruise control or \\ lane-keep technology. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
2 & \begin{tabular}{c} Partial \\ Automation \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Combined Function \\ Automation \\ \end{tabular} & Partial Automation & Partial Automation &
\begin{tabular}{c} Adaptive cruise control, active \\ lane-keep assist or automatic \\ emergency braking. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
3 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Conditional \\ Automation \\ \end{tabular} & Limited Self-Driving  Automation &
\begin{tabular}{c} A vehicle that can manage itself on a \\ freeway journey, excluding on- and \\ off-ramps and city driving, but driver \\ must be alert. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
4 & High Automation &
\begin{tabular}{c} High Automation \\ \end{tabular} & A vehicle that can complete an entire \\ \hline
5 & Full Automation & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Full Self-Driving \\ Automation \\ \end{tabular} & Full Automation &
\begin{tabular}{c} Journey without driver intervention \\ may be confined to a certain \\ geographical area (i.e., geofenced) or \\ could be prohibited from operating \\ beyond a certain speed. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: In-vehicle technology applications based on driving automation standards.