Key Takeaway:
Building trust and understanding through transparent communication, pilot projects, and addressing real-world concerns will be crucial for the successful rollout of CCAM services across Europe.
Why look at open-ended survey comments? What can they tell us?
Many online surveys end with a simple question: “Is there anything else you would like to tell us?” But what happens with those answers? For SINFONICA’s 2024 European survey on mobility needs and CCAM, this was more than a formality. Out of over 4,400 participants, 659 took the time to write something here – sometimes just a correction, but in 254 cases (39%) offering thoughtful, often passionate reflections on mobility and automation. Why do these matter? Because while statistics can tell us “how many” or “how much,” comments reveal the “why”: the lived experience, hopes, frustrations, and doubts far richer than numbers alone.
Who are the people behind the comments?
- Countries: Most comments came from Germany (66%), with significant input from the UK (19%) and the Netherlands (8%). Greece, Italy, and a handful of other countries also contributed.
- CCAM Familiarity: Only 20% had heard of CCAM before taking the survey; the rest encountered the concept for the first time.
- Age Range: The average commenter was 39, but commenters spanned from 19 to 82 years old, capturing youth, working-age, and older adults.
- Gender: Men (54%) and women (43%) were both well represented; non-binary and “no info” made up the rest.
The voices include city dwellers and rural residents, people with and without disabilities, parents, students, retirees, and people with a range of digital confidence.
What do people want from mobility – and from CCAM?
- Complaints About the Status Quo (35%)
Over a third of comments weren’t about CCAM per se, but about existing gaps in public transport – especially in rural areas, but also in cities.
“I live in a rural area. The bus runs once an hour to the nearest train station or shops. If CCAM could replace the bus and make things more flexible, that’d be great…” (Germany, female, 39)
“Frequency of service is very important—our bus is only once per hour.” (UK, male, 54)
- Safety, Digital Exclusion, and Critical Voices (29%)
Nearly a third of commenters expressed skepticism or outright criticism, focusing on safety, technical readiness, digital exclusion, and the potential loss of jobs and human contact.
“As a woman, I would not want to use public transport with no driver. I feel uneasy about driverless vehicles and would want to reach a driver directly in an emergency.” (Germany, female, 23)
“My anxiety does not welcome driverless vehicles.” (UK, female, 60)
“I don’t have a smartphone—if CCAM depends on that, it’s not for me.” (Germany, male, 37)
“Who will be responsible in the event of a collision? The customer? Remote driver? Programmer? Legislation will be key.” (UK, male, 23)
Many of these concerns came from people who had not previously heard of CCAM, older adults, and those with less experience using digital tools. The fear of being “locked out” by technology was common among older people and those digitally unconnected.
Security and personal safety—especially for women at night—emerged as recurring themes, with calls for visible emergency buttons and human assistance options. Others flagged worries about anti-social behaviour, vandalism, and loss of jobs for drivers.
- Hope and Enthusiasm—But With Conditions (17%)
A significant group sees CCAM as an opportunity for better access, especially for people with health conditions, older people, and rural residents. Others are excited by potential environmental benefits and technological progress.
“I have a severe pulmonary condition. I’d really benefit from such mobility concepts, if implemented, as I may not always be able to drive.” (Germany, female, 29)
“CCAM vehicles in the West Midlands would be awesome. Good, flexible public transport is a reason for me to keep living here.” (UK, male, 32)
Many positive responses came from people in rural or poorly served areas, those with disabilities, or from younger “early adopter” profiles. But even these supporters stressed the importance of safety, affordability, and user-friendly design.
These comments highlight what people really need: not just new technology, but frequent, reliable, well-connected, affordable transport that meets everyday life needs. Many rural and suburban residents feel left behind by current systems.
- Mixed Feelings and Unclear Opinions (10%)
Some respondents expressed excitement and worry, often about safety, technical reliability, and whether CCAM would solve the problems they face.
“I think having this type of car is absolutely remarkable and convenient, but if something malfunctions, it could be lethal… It’s not about it being nice, convenient, good, or bad; it is about it being completely safe.” (Germany, male, 22)
“I like the concept, but automated vehicles need to be reliable and safe under all conditions.” (multiple)
- Affordability, Integration, and Reliability (8% of comments)
One of the clearest messages: cost matters, and so does seamless integration. Many fear CCAM will be a “premium” service or an expensive add-on, rather than a true public good.
“If CCAM is not included with the existing ticket system and just makes things more expensive again, it loses relevance for me.” (Germany, male, 35)
“Transport prices are very high in the UK, so this new system could make a real difference, being cheaper.” (UK, male, 47)
People want CCAM to work with existing regional tickets, to be as affordable as current public transport (or more so), and not to exclude students, pensioners, or low-income groups. Reliability—knowing the service will run as promised—is seen as just as vital.
What does this mean for the future rollout of CCAM in Europe?
The message is clear: mobility must be safe, affordable, accessible, and reliable for everyone. While many people are open to, or even enthusiastic about, new mobility options like CCAM, acceptance will hinge on:
- Affordability and Integration: CCAM should not be a premium service for the few, but must be woven into existing public transport systems, with no extra costs or digital hurdles for disadvantaged groups.
- Safety, Both Technical and Personal: Automated vehicles must not only be road-safe, but must also feel personally safe, especially for women, older people, and those traveling at night. This means visible emergency options, human support, and robust security features.
- Digital Inclusion: Services must offer both digital and non-digital ways to book and pay, so that digitally non-connected people are not excluded.
- Responding to Local Realities: In rural areas, flexible and frequent service is appreciated. In urban areas, integration with existing networks and alternatives to private cars is key.
- Trust-Building: Transparent communication, pilot projects, and involving users in design and testing will be crucial to build trust and understanding, especially for those unfamiliar with CCAM.
Final thoughts: Listening before launching
People are not rejecting automated mobility out of hand—but they are clear-eyed about what matters: cost, safety, usability, and real improvements over the status quo. Their voices—critical, hopeful, and pragmatic—must shape how CCAM is rolled out if it is to succeed. Listening to these voices is not a “nice to have”, but the foundation for real, inclusive mobility progress.
————————–
Based on qualitative comment analysis from the SINFONICA online survey, March-June 2024.
For more information on the survey, please see https://sinfonica.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/MS12_Common-guidelines-for-users-survey.pdf and keep an eye out for the SINFONICA Knowledge Map Explorer to be released in a few weeks, also including the survey results.
Author: Juliane Anke, Madlen Ringhand (TUD)
