use of intelligent systems in vehicles · transport efficiency through intelligent vehicle safety...

Special Eurobarometer

Use of Intelligent Systems in Vehicles

Fieldwork: June - July 2006

Publication: December 2006

Spe

cial

Eur

obar

omet

er 2

67 /

Wav

e 65

.4 –

TN

S O

pini

on &

Soc

ial

This survey was requested by Directorate General Information Society and Media and coordinated by Directorate General Communication

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

European Commission

Special EUROBAROMETER 267 “USE OF INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS IN VEHICLES”

- 1 -

Table of contents

PRESENTATION .......................................................................................... 2

1. EU CITIZENS’ DRIVING PATTERNS.......................................................... 4

1.1 The Average European Driver...................................................................4 1.2 Differences between countries and respondent groups .................................5

1.2.1 Drivers and non-drivers .....................................................................5 1.2.2 The car fleet.....................................................................................8 1.2.3 Europeans’ driving habits .................................................................11

2. FACTORS EFFECTING THE CHOICE OF CAR ............................................ 13

3. PERCEPTIONS OF INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SYSTEMS............................... 17

3.1 Perceived usefulness of intelligent vehicle systems ....................................19 3.2 Focus on data privacy issues ..................................................................41 3.3 Factors discouraging having intelligent systems in a car .............................47

4. INFORMATION SOURCES....................................................................... 49

5. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES...................................................... 52

CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 55 ANNEXES Technical note Questionnaire Data tables


- 2 -

PRESENTATION

There are an estimated 375 million road users within the EU. Every year, over 1.4 million road accidents result in over 40,000 fatalities and 1.7 million injured1. Moreover, the rising volumes of traffic cause problems such as congestion of the main roads and harmful effects on the environment and public health.

Improving road safety, guaranteeing the efficiency of transport and making driving more economic and thus more environmentally friendly are the key challenges posed to road traffic today.

These challenges are truly pan-European: they affect all 25 Member States and call for a European-level solution. The intensity of these problems varies from country to country due to different levels of infrastructure and vehicle safety, driver behaviour and composition of the car fleet which in turn requires even deeper co-operation between all stake holders towards more harmonised regulations and infrastructures throughout Europe.

There are several ways to tackle the problems, among others intelligent vehicle systems, caused by the increasing volume of traffic:

1) Educating and training the drivers 2) Enforcing road safety rules 3) Improving the physical road infrastructure 4) Improving vehicle safety e.g. by encouraging the use of Intelligent Systems in

vehicles

This Special Eurobarometer report tackles the issue of Intelligent Systems in vehicles. The eSafety initiative was launched in 2002 recognising the potential of using intelligent vehicle systems in order to increase road safety2. It is a joint industry-public sector initiative of the European Commission and the relevant European industries and other stakeholders. Its objective is to improve road safety and road transport efficiency through Intelligent Vehicle Safety systems.

As its latest action, the European Commission presented “The Intelligent Car Initiative”3 in February 2006. This Communication tackles the reasons that slow down the use of intelligent systems. It is based on three pillars:

• To coordinate and support the work of relevant stakeholders • To support research and development • To increase public awareness of these systems that is the main motivation

behind this study.

All proposed actions are based on a multi-stakeholder forum - the EC, the automotive industry, public authorities, the mobile communications industry, information technology sectors, road authorities etc. - because encouraging the use of intelligent systems cannot and should not depend on private business only.

All the systems described in this report have a considerable potential to save lives but most of them have a limited market share or are not yet introduced to the market for various reasons. There are legal, budgetary and administrative barriers to be overcome. There is a need for stronger customer demand and a higher level of awareness of these safety functions. Finally, the highly competitive situation and high manufacturing costs lead to a situation where these systems are offered only for high range cars i.e. to a limited consumer group.

1 COM(2006)59 “Raising awareness of ICT for Smarter, Safer and Cleaner Vehicles” 2 Read more in http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/index_en.htm 3 More about The Intelligent Car Initiative in http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/esafety_what_s_new/index_en.htm


- 3 -

Against this background, DG Information Society and Media launched this Eurobarometer study that covered all 25 Member States. 24,815 citizens4 were interviewed face to face between 7 June and 12 July 2006 about their perception of intelligent vehicle systems and their usefulness.

This report consists of five chapters dealing with the following themes: • EU citizens driving patterns: identifying potential user groups of intelligent

vehicle systems; • Factors effecting the choice of car: which factors Europeans consider if they

were to buy a car; • Perceptions of intelligent vehicle systems: desirability and perceived

usefulness of intelligent vehicle systems; • Preferred information sources: who Europeans trust to give them

information about intelligent vehicle systems; • The role of public authorities: which actions the public authorities are

expected to carry out in order to encourage the use of intelligent vehicle systems.

The results presented in this report are analysed in terms of the European average5 and then considered on a country-by-country basis. Differences between the old and the new Member States and geographical areas are described when applicable. Also, special focus is laid on the most populous Member States that also have the largest numbers of vehicles and, therefore, are of greatest interest when it comes to intelligent vehicle systems. Some brief comments are made on the socio-demographic variables of citizens of the European Union.6

Moreover, questions QE2-QE5 concerning the profile of drivers were systematically cross tabulated with questions QE6-QE12 in order to see whether Europeans’ driving patterns have an effect on their perception of intelligent vehicle systems.

4 The study covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. 5 The EU25 averages are weighted according to the size of population of each Member State 6 In some cases, due to the rounding of figures, displayed sums can show a difference of one point with the sum of the individual cells.

When interpreting the results it should be taken into account that the sample included EU citizens aged 15 and more even if the minimum age to have a driving licence is, with a few exceptions, 18 within the EU

However, questions concerning driving habits (QE2-QE6) are asked only in the group of those who drive which excludes respondents under 18 except 26 persons who indicate that they drive a car.

Questions concerning perceptions of intelligent vehicle systems (QE7-QE12) are analysed in the total sample in order to present also the opinion of citizens that are potential users of intelligent vehicle systems in the future.

Finally, high non-response rates are observed for some questions asking for respondents’ opinions on intelligent vehicle systems (QE7-QE12). This is particularly true for countries where fewer respondents have a driving licence and they therefore presumably have difficulties in forming opinion on this topic. Consequently, in question QE8 both responses of the total sample and of those who answered to this question are presented.


- 4 -

1. EU CITIZENS’ DRIVING PATTERNS This first chapter describes EU citizens’ driving habits and characterises the car fleet in Europe. The results are first discussed at European level and then differences between countries, socio-demographic categories and in terms of driving patterns are presented. Source questionnaire: QE1-QE67 1.1 The Average European Driver

An average European drives his/her own car (57%) which is most often medium-sized (48%) or a small car (27%). Europeans buy second hand (53%) and new cars (46%) fairly equally but the car fleet appears to be rather old (66% 4 years+) than new (33% up to 3 years old). About a half of EU citizens (47%) have a car older than six years since the first registration.

7 N.B. Question QE1 was asked to all and questions QE2-QE6 were asked from those who drive.

QE1 Please tell which of the following situations applies to you. (MULTIPLE

ANSWERS POSSIBLE) - % EU25

9%

29%

57%

5%

4%

0% 60%

You drive acompany/fleet

car

You drivesomeoneelse’s car

You have adriving licencebut you rarelyor never drive

You do nothave a driving

license

You drive yourown car

QE5 Did you get the car you usually use new or second hand? - % EU25

46%

53%

1%

0% 60%

DK

New

Second hand

QE4 How would you best describe the size of the car you usually use? - % EU25

9%

12%

27%

48%

1%

2%

0% 60%

Sport car

SUV

Family car(Peoplecarrier)

Big sized car

City car/Smallcar

Medium-sizedcar

QE6 And how old is this car now? By this I mean the number of years since first registration. (DO

NOT READ OUT) - % EU

5%

6%

10%

12%

19%

28%

19%

1%

0% 30%

DK

Less than 1 year old

1 year old

2 years old

3 years old

4 to 5 years old

6 to 10 years old

More than 10 years old


- 5 -

QE3 How many kilometres do you drive per year? - % EU25

4%

9%

15%

23%

27%

15%

2%

0% 30%

50.000 km or more

From 30.000 to less than 50.000km




From 5.000 to less than 10.000 km

Less than 5.000 km

QE2 Thinking in terms of how you drive on a weekly basis would you say that you mainly

drive…? - % EU25

22%

13%

22%

44%

0% 50%

2 or 3 of theseequally

(SPONTANEOUS)

On motorwaysand other fast

highways

On rural roads

On urban roads

Half of EU citizens (50%) drive between 5,000 and 15,000 km per year, mostly on urban roads (44%). Only 6% of respondents indicate that they drive more than 30.000 km per year. 1.2 Differences between countries and respondent groups There are significant differences between countries, markedly between the old and the new Member States, and respondent groups, when it comes to those who have or do not have a driving licence and in terms of the ownership, size and age of their cars. Briefly, it can be said that significantly fewer citizens in the new Member States have a driving licence and, therefore, own a car compared to those residing in the EU15. Respondents in the new Member States tend to also drive older cars and buy them second hand while respondents in the EU15 tend to more often have a car aged less than 6 years and buy their car as new.

1.2.1 Drivers and non-drivers Source questionnaire: QE1 Firstly, respondents who live in the 15 old Member States are significantly more likely to have a driving licence (75%) than their counterparts in the new Member States (53%). Consequently, while the majority of Latvians (59%), Hungarians (52%), Lithuanians (52%) and Poles (51%) do not have a driving licence, this is the case only for 16% of citizens of Luxembourg and Sweden. It is also more common in the new Member States that a respondent has a driving licence but he/she drives rarely or never (14% against 8% in the EU15). Out of the old Member States, citizens of southern Europe – Greece (43%), Spain (42%) and Portugal (41%) - state slightly more frequently that they do not have a driving licence.


- 6 -

In France (79%), Italy (82%), Germany (79%) and the United Kingdom (71%) – the four most populous countries of the EU – the share of those who have a driving licence is equal or above the EU average (71%). In consequence, respondents in the EU15 more often drive their own car (61% against 34% in the NMS). This difference is marked in the country by country analysis: while three quarters of citizens of Luxembourg (75%) have their own car this is the case only for a quarter of Latvians (25%). 69% of French, 65% of Italians, 64% of Germans and 59% of Brits drive their own car compared to the EU average (57%). Slovenia is the only new Member State where the share of those who have a driving licence (76%) and those who drive their own car (67%) is above the EU average.

- Respondents in the EU15 are significantly more likely to have a driving licence -

QE1 Please tell which of the following situations applies to you. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

You drive your own car

You drive a company/fleet

car

You drive someone else’s car

You have a driving licence but you rarely

or never drive

You do not have a driving license

LU 75% 4% 9% 3% 16% CY 71% 7% 10% 3% 18% FR 69% 6% 6% 8% 21% SI 67% 4% 5% 7% 23% SE 66% 10% 12% 10% 16% IT 65% 5% 7% 7% 18% BE 64% 8% 7% 7% 19% DE 64% 3% 5% 10% 21% IE 64% 1% 4% 2% 29% NL 64% 8% 4% 8% 21% AT 61% 4% 6% 12% 20% DK 60% 9% 8% 14% 19% FI 60% 6% 6% 9% 24% UK 59% 5% 7% 7% 29% EU25 57% 4% 5% 9% 29% MT 55% 4% 6% 6% 37% PT 50% 3% 2% 5% 41% ES 48% 2% 2% 7% 42% EL 44% 2% 4% 9% 43% CZ 41% 6% 8% 15% 35% EE 35% 7% 6% 12% 46% LT 34% 3% 3% 10% 52% SK 34% 6% 5% 20% 41% PL 31% 3% 4% 14% 51% HU 30% 3% 3% 13% 52% LV 25% 5% 4% 10% 59% EU15 61% 4% 5% 8% 25% NMS 34% 4% 4% 14% 47%

When it comes to socio demographic categories8, men (16% no driving licence), those aged 25-54 (19-21%), those who have a higher level of education (15% of those who studied at least until aged 20) and those who are in a managerial position or self-employed (around 10% no driving licence) are most likely to have a driving licence.

8 The base of these socio-demographic figures includes respondents aged 18 and more.


- 7 -

Also the location of residence appears to influence whether a respondent has a driving licence since 35% of those who live in a large town do not have one whereas this is the case for only 11% of respondents living in rural areas. In turn, women (41% no driving licence), young respondents (40% of those aged 18-24) and, in parallel, students (35%), the elderly (41% of those aged 55+), those with a low level of education (48%), pensioners (45%), house persons (46%) and the unemployed (45%) state most often that they do not have a driving licence. Finally, when the focus is turned on the ownership of cars, not surprisingly it appears to be connected with gender, the socio-economic status and age: 68% of males, 64% of those aged 25-54, 68% of those with a high level of education, 78% of the self-employed and 76% of managers drive their own car. In these categories, respondents are also significantly more likely to drive a company/fleet car. Of note is that out of those driving a company car, over half (54%) also drive their own car.


- 8 -

1.2.2 The car fleet Source questionnaire: QE4-QE6

- Most Europeans drive a small or a medium sized car –

QE4 How would you best describe the size of the car you usually use? - % country

40%

41%

42%

43%

43%

43%

45%

45%

47%

48%

48%

48%

50%

50%

51%

51%

51%

51%

52%

53%

54%

54%

54%

58%

59%

60%

37%

28%

23%

22%

42%

25%

21%

14%

24%

27%

21%

28%

21%

27%

27%

12%

31%

13%

29%

25%

26%

26%

27%

16%

25%

12%

10%

14%

13%

16%

9%

16%

11%

29%

8%

12%

14%

14%

13%

11%

7%

19%

9%

14%

12%

14%

9%

12%

13%

10%

6%

12%

11%

13%

14%

13%

5%

10%

5%

8%

16%

9%

14%

5%

9%

9%

13%

14%

7%

13%

5%

6%

8%

4%

9%

8%

13%

5%

6%

14%

0% 50% 100%

FR

MT

LU

BE

PT

UK

CY

SE

NL

EU25

DK

ES

EL

IT

CZ

LV

HU

FI

SI

AT

DE

IE

PL

EE

SK

LT

Medium-sized car City car/Small car Big sized car Family car (People carrier) Sport car SUVOther (SPONTANEOUS) DK

A great majority of Europeans drive either a medium sized car (48%) or a small car (27%). There are no significant differences between the old and new Member States in terms of the size of car, although citizens of new countries have slightly more often a medium sized car. In the four most populous counties, the largest share of citizens drive a medium sized car (54% in Germany, 50% in Italy, 43% in the United Kingdom and 40% in France). 42% of Portuguese and 37% of French drivers use a city car/a small car while 29% of Swedes state that they are driving a big car and 16% of Dutch respondents have a family car. As the new generation active safety features are at present mainly installed in the high-end range of vehicles, they are not yet available to a large share of EU citizens.


- 9 -

- Europeans tend to buy second hand cars and the average age of their car is around 4-5 years-

QE5 Did you get the car you usually use new or second hand?

QE6 And how old is this car now? By this I mean the number of years since first registration. (DO NOT READ OUT)

New

Second hand

Less than 1 year

old

1 year old

2 years old

3 years old

4 to 5 years old

6 to 10 years old

More than 10 years

old

ES 77% 22% LU 13% 11% 13% 13% 17% 24% 8%

EL 75% 25% IE 9% 10% 14% 14% 21% 27% 4%

LU 74% 26% BE 8% 7% 10% 11% 20% 29% 15%

IT 69% 30% DK 7% 5% 8% 8% 12% 34% 25%

MT 65% 35% IT 7% 9% 13% 19% 19% 23% 9%

BE 58% 41% FI 7% 5% 8% 9% 12% 28% 30%

SK 49% 51% FR 6% 4% 7% 6% 17% 33% 27%

AT 48% 50% CY 6% 3% 6% 8% 18% 29% 28%

PT 48% 50% SE 6% 5% 6% 8% 13% 31% 29%

EU25 46% 53% EU25 5% 6% 10% 12% 19% 28% 19%

SI 45% 54% DE 5% 6% 12% 13% 18% 27% 18%

DE 43% 57% EL 5% 7% 9% 12% 20% 24% 24%

CY 42% 57% ES 5% 8% 14% 15% 20% 22% 13%

DK 41% 58% NL 5% 5% 7% 10% 20% 35% 18%

CZ 37% 62% PT 5% 5% 6% 8% 22% 29% 24%

HU 36% 61% UK 5% 5% 9% 13% 23% 30% 14%

IE 35% 64% EE 4% 2% 4% 8% 9% 30% 43%

FR 34% 66% HU 4% 5% 9% 11% 15% 27% 29%

SE 34% 65% MT 4% 4% 6% 7% 12% 37% 28%

NL 33% 67% SI 4% 4% 8% 10% 19% 33% 21%

FI 33% 66% SK 4% 4% 6% 12% 21% 29% 25%

UK 33% 67% LV 3% 1% 2% 3% 4% 24% 62%

PL 25% 73% AT 3% 6% 19% 20% 26% 19% 6%

EE 18% 81% CZ 2% 2% 7% 11% 23% 32% 23%

LV 11% 89% LT 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 20% 72%

LT 4% 95% PL 2% 2% 5% 3% 14% 38% 34%

EU15 48% 51% EU15 6% 6% 11% 13% 19% 28% 17% NMS 31% 68% NMS 3% 3% 6% 7% 16% 33% 32%

The dichotomy between the new and old Member States reappears when we examine the age of cars and whether cars were bought new or second hand: 48% of citizens of the old Member States have bought their car new while only 31% of respondents in the new Member States have done so. At country level, three quarters of Spaniards (77%), Greeks (75%) and Luxembourgish citizens (74%) have bought their car as new while 95% of Lithuanians and 89% of Latvians have bought their car second hand. Citizens of Germany, France and the United Kingdom tend to buy they car second hand while Italians get their car more often new. When it comes to the age of cars, 65% of cars used in the new Member States are older than 6 years while this is the case for 45% of cars in the old EU15. Also, it is worth noting that 72% of the car fleet in Lithuania and 62% in Latvia is over 10 years old while only 4% of Irish and 6% of Austrian drivers drive a car of this age. While 60% of French drivers drive a car older than 6 years, this is the case for 45% of Germans, 44% of British and 32% of Italians.


- 10 -

In general, it can be pointed out that:

• Company cars are more likely to be big sized than the cars that respondents own. Company cars also tend to be newer.

• Those who have bought their car new have most often purchased a medium sized car. Second hand cars tend to be small cars.

• Small cars are likely to be older than medium or big sized cars. • Most of the cars that were bought as new are now aged between 3-5 years

while 68% of cars bought second hand are aged over 6 years. Again, the size of car, its age and whether it was bought second hand or new appears to depend on gender and socio-economic factors:

• Small car drivers: Young respondents (43%) and, in parallel, students (43%), females (38%) and house persons (35%);

• Medium sized car drivers: Fairly equally driven across the sample, especially

by males and elderly respondents; • Big car drivers: More likely aged 25 and over, male, with a high level of

education, self-employed or in a managerial position. Corresponds to the group most likely to drive a company car since 22% of company cars are big sized cars;

• Respondents buying a new car: The older the respondent is, the more likely he/she buys a new car (27% in the youngest age group against 59% in the age group of 55+). Of the occupation groups, the self-employed (55%), managers (48%) and retired respondents (60%) are most likely to have bought a new car.

• Respondents buying a second hand car: The respondents that are most

likely to buy a second hand car are young and still studying (70% of the young, 64% of students). Also, not surprisingly the unemployed (68%) tend to buy a used car instead of a new one.

• Respondents having a newer car (1-5 years old): Those aged 25-54 are slightly more likely to have a newer car than their younger and older counterparts. This is also the case for those who have a higher level of education and for the self-employed and managers. However, in this group the car is most often 4 to 5 years old. Well educated respondents, the self-employed and managers are slightly more likely to have a “brand new“ car not more than a year old.

• Respondents having an older car (6 years+): The unemployed most often

have an old car (61%), followed by manual workers (53%), young respondents (54%) and students (52%) as well as elderly respondents (50%) and, in parallel, pensioners (53%).


- 11 -

1.2.3 Europeans’ driving habits

- Most Europeans drive on urban roads or on a mixture of large and small roads -

Respondents in the old Member States (14%) state that they drive far more often on motorways and other fast highways than the citizens of NMS (6%). In this group, 34% of Dutch respondents indicate that they drive mostly in these roads while only 3% of Polish respondents state the same. Otherwise, the differences between these country groupings remain modest. It can be pointed out that in 15 of the 25 countries polled, including Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the largest share of citizens say that they mainly use urban roads. When it comes to the number of kilometres driven each year, there are no striking differences between countries. Roughly, it can be said that the citizens of

QE2 Thinking in term on how you drive on a weekly basis would you say that you mainly drive…? - % country

18%

23%

24%

25%

26%

27%

27%

28%

31%

32%

33%

34%

35%

41%

42%

44%

45%

45%

45%

48%

51%

51%

54%

60%

69%

71%

19%

11%

7%

15%

14%

22%

11%

9%

10%

12%

34%

18%

12%

7%

10%

13%

13%

6%

16%

7%

17%

9%

10%

10%

16%

37%

42%

25%

37%

33%

24%

28%

30%

30%

27%

14%

32%

24%

30%

22%

13%

23%

18%

18%

21%

13%

18%

25%

23%

43%

23%

28%

49%

37%

35%

28%

26%

7%

34%

21%

26%

18%

22%

39%

36%

16%

26%

28%

21%

15%

23%

10%

0% 50% 100%

LU

SE

EE

BE

DK

MT

PT

AT

DE

IE

NL

ES

FR

HU

CZ

EU25

EL

SI

FI

LV

CY

SK

UK

PL

LT

IT

On urban roads On motorways and other fast highwaysOn rural roads 2 or 3 of these equally (SPONTANEOUS)


- 12 -

Greece (31% more than 20.000 km), Estonia (30%), Latvia (28%) and Luxembourg (28%) drive slightly more annually than their fellow EU citizens. Most Germans (58%), Italians (55%), French (51%) and British (47%) drive between 5.000 and 15.000 km annually.

QE3 How many kilometres do you drive per year?

Less than 5.000

km

From 5.000 to less than 10.000

km


km

From 15.000 to less than 20.000 km


km

More than

30.000 km

EL 9% 22% 22% 17% 15% 16%

LV 19% 19% 16% 16% 13% 15%

EE 13% 23% 19% 13% 16% 14%

PT 18% 22% 16% 13% 11% 14%

LT 22% 27% 16% 9% 9% 13%

SK 25% 24% 16% 13% 8% 13%

NL 17% 25% 19% 15% 11% 12%

CY 12% 30% 17% 10% 10% 11%

FI 15% 24% 19% 15% 15% 11%

BE 13% 25% 21% 15% 16% 10%

SE 22% 17% 21% 16% 11% 10%

CZ 20% 27% 17% 15% 11% 9%

DK 12% 21% 22% 18% 16% 9%

LU 14% 19% 16% 18% 19% 9%

HU 22% 23% 21% 16% 9% 9%

PL 23% 27% 19% 11% 8% 9%

UK 15% 26% 21% 20% 8% 7%

EU25 15% 27% 23% 15% 9% 6%

ES 18% 23% 22% 14% 7% 6%

IE 11% 22% 23% 22% 15% 6%

MT 8% 19% 14% 6% 5% 6%

SI 15% 26% 26% 15% 11% 6%

DE 14% 34% 24% 13% 9% 5%

FR 17% 28% 23% 14% 10% 5%

IT 11% 27% 28% 18% 8% 4%

AT 11% 30% 26% 15% 9% 4%

Men drive significantly more (65% 10,000+ km per year) compared to women (39%). This is also the case for those who are most likely to be in working life i.e. aged 25-39 (60%), managers (71%) and the self-employed (68%). Those who drive a lot are more likely to drive a bigger and newer car, a company/fleet car and to use motorways and other fast highways.


- 13 -

2. FACTORS EFFECTING THE CHOICE OF CAR This second chapter examines which factors EU citizens consider as important when they are buying a car. Respondents were presented with a list of factors and asked to rank three factors apart from the price which would persuade them to choose one model over another. Source questionnaire: QE7

- Safety matters for Europeans -

QE7 Suppose you were to buy a car today, be it new or second hand, which factors, apart from the price, would make you lean towards one

model over another? - % TOTAL EU25

4%

7%

4%

5%

5%

12%

14%

15%

15%

19%

21%

22%

25%

53%

54%

2%

0% 60%

DK

Not applicable (SPONTANEOUS)

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

Level and availability of equipment

Number of seats

Resale value

Reputation of mark\ brand

Environmentally clean

Space inside

Servicing cost

Aesthetics

Durability/robustness

Engine performance

Comfort

Fuel consumption

Safety

When looking at the total results, two qualities of a car, safety (54%) and fuel consumption (53%), top by far the ranking of criteria for choosing one car model over another. “Convenience” factors, such as comfort (25%) and engine performance (22%) follow far behind. When the proposed factors are ranked, a quarter of respondents name safety (24%) as the factor they would consider first if they were to buy a car while 18% would consider fuel consumption as the primary factor. When the factors given the second highest importance are considered, 23% of respondents mention fuel consumption while every fifth citizen (20%) refers to safety. In brief, safety is the most important factor that EU citizens would take into account if they were to buy a car but most would consider fuel consumption in parallel. Europeans do not appear to give much importance to other factors listed here when choosing a car. However, it can be pointed out that when the factors related to costs of having and maintaining a car, i.e. fuel consumption, servicing costs and resale value, are considered together this integrated cost factor appears most important. The impact of fuel consumption in particular is easily understandable in the light of current fuel prices: the crude oil price per barrel has hit the new record in the year 2006 which is almost four times higher than at the beginning of the year 2002.


- 14 -

- Fuel consumption is considered in parallel with safety -

At country level, in 20 out of 25 countries polled, the majority of citizens name safety as the first factor that would affect their decision if they were to buy a car. This is especially the case in Greece (45%) and Cyprus (43%). Respondents in the rest of the countries rank fuel consumption as the first criterion when choosing a car. The highest share of respondents in Malta (34%), Germany (26%), Estonia (23%), Latvia (23%) and Lithuania (21%) mention fuel consumption as the first factor they would take into account if they were to buy a car. When we focus on the second factor, fuel consumption becomes the most often mentioned function in 19 Member States, although safety is still considered to be an important criterion. When asked about the third factor, respondents still mention most often fuel consumption and safety but also more frequently servicing costs.

QE7 Suppose you were to buy a car today, be it new or second hand, which factors, apart from the price, would make you lean towards one model over

another? - % EU25

2%

3%

3%

9%

7%

5%

5%

9%

10%

6%

7%

17%

14%

2%

2%

2%

5%

5%

4%

6%

9%

10%

6%

7%

23%

20%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

10%

18%

24%

1%

1%

1%

0% 30%

Level and availability ofequipment

Number of seats

Resale value

Servicing cost

Environmentally clean

Reputation of mark/brand

Space inside

Durability/ robustness

Comfort

Aesthetics

Engine performance

Fuel consumption

Safety

Thirdly Secondly Firstly


- 15 -

When these results are considered as a whole i.e. when adding up all given answers, safety receives the highest number of mentions in 14 countries, in particular in Greece (76%) and Cyprus (72%), while citizens of 11 countries, specifically in Malta (71%), Slovakia (69%) and Germany (68%), refer most often to fuel consumption as a main criterion when choosing a car.

QE7 Suppose you were to buy a car today, be it new or second hand, which factors, apart from the price, would make you lean towards one model over another?

Firstly Secondly Thirdly TOTAL

Safety

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption

Safety Fuel

consumption Safety

Servicing cost

Safety Fuel

consumption

EU25 24% 18% 23% 20% 17% 14% 9% 54% 53%

BE 24% 15% 20% 24% 18% 12% 8% 59% 51%

CZ 21% 17% 23% 20% 17% 12% 10% 49% 52%

DK 28% 16% 23% 20% 19% 13% 8% 59% 56%

DE 25% 26% 28% 19% 17% 13% 12% 55% 68%

EE 11% 23% 23% 18% 19% 12% 14% 33% 52%

EL 45% 4% 13% 21% 13% 11% 15% 76% 29%

ES 28% 9% 21% 22% 17% 12% 11% 56% 40%

FR 21% 18% 20% 21% 17% 13% 11% 52% 52%

IE 25% 13% 18% 19% 18% 11% 5% 53% 46%

IT 21% 17% 21% 20% 19% 15% 6% 54% 55%

CY 43% 9% 24% 20% 19% 11% 14% 72% 48%

LV 16% 23% 24% 17% 19% 14% 14% 40% 57%

LT 11% 21% 23% 16% 19% 14% 8% 37% 58%

LU 29% 14% 21% 18% 17% 12% 9% 59% 52%

HU 22% 16% 31% 18% 19% 16% 19% 49% 56%

MT 11% 34% 23% 15% 18% 16% 6% 39% 71%

NL 21% 10% 15% 20% 14% 14% 2% 52% 38%

AT 21% 20% 24% 16% 16% 13% 9% 47% 55%

PL 26% 22% 28% 21% 18% 14% 9% 55% 60%

PT 28% 16% 23% 21% 19% 14% 11% 58% 53%

SI 35% 17% 25% 22% 18% 11% 19% 66% 57%

SK 34% 23% 30% 23% 19% 13% 13% 68% 69%

FI 33% 16% 23% 19% 16% 10% 10% 60% 53%

SE 34% 20% 24% 20% 19% 13% 7% 66% 61%

UK 16% 16% 19% 18% 17% 17% 6% 46% 46% There are no striking differences between socio-demographic categories or in terms of driving habits but certain preferences can be identified between the groups. When the factor ranked as first is considered, females and those who have small children are slightly more concerned about safety than their counterparts. In turn, males, those who live alone or have no children as well those aged 15-24 are relatively less concerned about this factor, although all these groups mention most often safety. Fuel consumption is mentioned fairly equally across the sample. “Convenience” factors such as engine performance are most often mentioned by men and those aged 15-24 in parallel with students. Young respondents also more often pay attention to aesthetics than their older counterparts.


- 16 -

Considering the future road users aged 15-17, the largest share considers safety as the primary criterion (24%), followed by engine performance (17%) and aesthetics (18%). This youngest group of respondents does not pay much attention to fuel consumption (7%). When it comes to driving patterns, safety is most appreciated by those who drive less than 10,000 km per year and by those who have bought their car as new. Those who drive a lot and a big sized car regard engine performance as a first factor more often than their counterparts. Fuel consumption is considered to be slightly more important by those who drive a small car and have bought their car second hand.

* * * In conclusion, there appears to be demand, and thus, a market for intelligent safety vehicle systems since their aim is first to enhance safety and secondly decrease fuel consumption by making driving more economic and efficient. The following chapters examine EU citizens’ perceptions of individual safety systems and also reasons for their reluctance to have these systems in their car.


- 17 -

3. PERCEPTIONS OF INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SYSTEMS This third chapter introduces a group of intelligent safety systems that are either already in use or under development. These systems aim at increasing safety and security on one hand, and facilitating navigation and routing on the other. The selection of the list of systems here is based on the final report of the eSafety Forum’s “Implementation Road Map Working Group”9. This working group identified and ranked relevant systems for which introduction to the market is in process or would be possible in the very near future i.e. by 2010. The systems were classified according to whether they are vehicle based systems or infrastructure related systems which require interaction between the vehicle and the infrastructure aiming at sending, receiving, processing and storing various information (telematic systems). Considering the list below, numbers 1-6 and 10 are vehicle based systems whereas numbers 7-9 require interaction between the vehicle and infrastructure (telematic systems). ABS is not included in the working group’s proposition since it is already widely used but was taken here in order to provide contrast between a system that is already widely in use and less familiar systems. Respondents were presented with the following systems:

1. ABS, Anti-Lock Breaking System: system preventing the blocking of the wheels when breaking and thus allowing the car to stay on track.

First taken in use in cars in late 1970's. Now 91% of new vehicles are equipped with ABS and the penetration rate is 66% in the whole vehicle park in Europe.

2. ESP, Electronic Stability Program: system stabilising the vehicle and preventing skidding in critical situations.

Based on ABS, detects the onset of a slide and automatically applies the brakes to individual wheels to correct the slide and prevent spinning. First used in 1995, in 2005 the penetration rate is 40% in new cars.

3. Blind Spot Monitoring System: system warning the driver about nearby obstacles in the blind spot. Since 2004 available in some new vehicles but on an early stage of deployment.

4. Adaptive Head Lights: system moving headlights when turning into bends and adjusting the luminous intensity in order to avoid dazzling. Available as an option in several European Models.

5. Obstacle and collision warning: system detecting potential collisions with other vehicles or obstacles based on current speed. Available as an option in several European models.

6. Lane departure warning system: system warning the driver when unintentionally leaving the lane.

Available for commercial vehicles as an extra fitment for several years, for passenger vehicles some models available in 2005.

7. eCall, Emergency call system: system automatically calling the local emergency authorities and instantly transferring to them accurate vehicle position and other accident related data when the vehicle is involved in a serious accident and thus reducing the time for the rescue services to arrive

The aim is to equip all new vehicles with eCall system starting 2010.

8. Real time traffic and travel information: system providing real time information about the road network such as traffic jams and weather conditions allowing drivers to choose an alternative itinerary.

9. Speed Alert: system detecting local speed limits on all types of roads and warning driver if they exceed these.

10. Monitoring the state of vigilance of the driver: system warning the driver in case of drowsiness, distraction or carelessness.

9 See more in http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/forum/roadmaps/index_en.htm


- 18 -

In the following sub-chapters we examine EU citizens’ perception of the usefulness of these systems10 and the reasons which put them off buying a vehicle equipped with these kinds of intelligent safety vehicle systems. Moreover, a closer look is given to eCall and real time traffic and travel information and whether respondents consider them as an intrusion into drivers’ privacy.

10 The results concerning each system are presented both for the total sample and for those who answered to the question because it can be anticipated that respondents who spontaneously replied either “don’t know” or “not applicable” are most often those who do not drive a car and therefore have difficulties with forming an opinion on intelligent vehicle systems.


- 19 -

3.1 Perceived usefulness of intelligent vehicle systems

- There is no doubt about the perceived usefulness of intelligent vehicle systems -

Source questionnaire: QE8

QE8 I will read out a list of car safety systems, some of which already exist and others which are currently under development. For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best

corresponds to your opinion. - % EU25

47%

49%

50%

52%

53%

53%

57%

59%

65%

73%

20%

20%

21%

19%

17%

20%

17%

16%

12%

7%

13%

11%

9%

9%

10%

8%

6%

6%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

9%

7%

6%

6%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

0% 50% 100%

6. Lane departurewarning system

9. Speed Alert

8. Real time traffic andtravel information

5. Obstacle and collisionwarning

4. Adaptive Head Lights

10. Monitoring the stateof vigilance of the driver

3. Blind Spot MonitoringSystem

7. Ecall, Emergency callsystem

2. ESP, ElectronicStability Program

1. ABS, Anti-LockBreaking System

It is a useful system and you would like to have it on your next carIt is not a useful system but you would like to have it on your next carIt is a useful system but you would not like to have it on you next carIt is not a useful system and you would not like to have it on your next car Not applicable (SPONTANEOUS)DK

The majority of EU citizens would like to have each of the ten intelligent vehicle systems presented here in their new car. The share ranges from 75% concerning ABS to 52% concerning lane departure warning system. Most EU citizens also perceive these ten systems presented here as useful, the percentage ranging from 80% for ABS to 67% for lane departure warning systems. Probably due to its familiarity, three quarters (75%) would like to have ABS in their car. The clear majority would also have a car equipped with an Electronic Stability Program (68%), eCall (62%) and a Blind Spot Monitoring System (61%).

It is worth noting that there are still a reasonable number of respondents who do not want to have some of these systems (e.g. lane departure warning system, speed alert or real time traffic and travel information) in their car or do not recognise them as an improvement to the security or comfort of driving. This could be due to the fact that these systems are not yet on the market. Reasons related to privacy issues discussed in chapter 3.2 could also explain their reluctance to have intelligent safety systems.


- 20 -

This is especially the case for the lane departure warning system: 20% of respondents perceive it as useful but would not like to have it in their car and 13% do not see any benefit in having this kind of system. Concerning the overall acceptance of these systems, there are no clear differences between countries. When the whole sample is considered, it appears that respondents in the NMS are slightly more reluctant to have these systems. However, this is mainly due to the lower share of respondents that drive in the new Member States and therefore do not have an opinion on these systems and this difference disappears when only those who drive are considered. Roughly it can be said that respondents in Greece and Cyprus, two countries that have a high number of road fatalities in relation to their population, are the most supportive for the use of these systems, followed by Swedish, Luxembourgish and Belgian citizens, while respondents in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Germany are slightly more reluctant to have these systems in their new car. When it comes to the socio-demographic groupings, some minor distinctions can be made: Males, those who have a higher level of education and respondents with small children indicate slightly more often on average that they consider these safety systems as useful and would like to have them in their new car. Considering driving patterns, not surprisingly those who drive appreciate these systems more often than those who have no personal experience of driving. Also, those who drive a high number of kilometres per year and have bought a new car appear to accept these systems slightly more often than those who drive less and own a second hand car. On the other hand, respondents who indicate that they drive a small car or a second hand car are less likely to consider these systems as useful and worth having in their car. Finally, it should be noted that the number of respondents stating that these questions are not applicable in their situation or that they do not know reflects the driving patterns of each country i.e. in countries where a reasonable share of respondents do not hold a driving licence, many respondents choose these options.


- 21 -

- The majority of respondents in every Member State would like to have ABS in their new car -

QE8.1 For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: ABS, Anti-Lock Breaking

System - % country

58%

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

79%

79%

83%

10%

6%

16%

7%

7%

12%

13%

7%

6%

6%

8%

9%

5%

7%

7%

17%

18%

22%

7%

13%

18%

5%

9%

6%

9%

17%

9%

5%

6%

8%

7%

5%

7%

12%

10%

10%

13%

19%

12%

8%

8%

9%

8%

10%

15%

6%

6%

5%

5%

88%

85%

85%

84%

78%

78%

76%

78%

73%

66%

68%

66%

65%

63%

60%

60%

68%

6%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

14%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

18%

4%

4%

5%

5%

4% 5%

7%

4%

0% 50% 100%

HU

EE

LV

CZ

ES

LT

AT

PL

PT

SK

IT

MT

IE

EU25

UK

SI

FR

DE

FI

CY

NL

BE

DK

EL

LU

SE


The Anti-Lock Breaking system was first introduced in cars in the late 70’s and today it is widely used and familiar to respondents since 66% of vehicles are equipped with ABS at present. Most likely due to its familiarity, the majority of respondents in each country perceive the Anti-Lock Breaking System as useful and would like to have it in their car. Citizens of Sweden (89%), Luxembourg (87%), Greece (87%), Denmark (85%) and Belgium (85%) would, almost without exception, buy a car equipped with ABS if they were to get a new car.


- 22 -

Citizens in the most populous Member States, except Italy, would want to have the ABS system in their new car more often than Europeans on average: Germany (80%), France (80%), and the United Kingdom (75%).

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.1 For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your

opinion: ABS, Anti-Lock Breaking System - % country

76%

86%

87%

86%

88%

87%

92%

92%

92%

19%

15%

16%

15%

10%

9%

9%

9%

7%

5%

6%

7%

4%

5%

5%

6%

4%

5%

96%

93%

92%

92%

91%

91%

91%

89%

86%

85%

86%

85%

80%

79%

78%

74%

86%

4 %

6%

5%

4%

14%

8%

8%

9%

8%

5%

5%

4%

6%

4 %

4 %

4 %

0% 50% 100%

CZ

IT

HU

SK

AT

FI

DE

LT

NL

EE

EU25

ES

FR

MT

BE

LV

SI

IE

UK

DK

CY

EL

LU

PL

PT

SE

It is a useful system and you would like to have it on your next carIt is not a useful system but you would like to have it on your next carIt is a useful system but you would not like to have it on you next carIt is not a useful system and you would not like to have it on your next car

When the results are considered for those respondents who answered to this question, it is observed that the great majority in each country would have ABS in their new car. The highest numbers of those who would not want to have this system are observed in the Czech Republic (22%), Hungary (20%) and Italy (19%).


- 23 -

- Also ESP is an appreciated safety system by the majority of citizens in each Member State -

QE8.2 For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: ESP, Electronic Stability

Program - % country

52%

53%

58%

56%

59%

60%

62%

63%

65%

66%

65%

66%

65%

68%

68%

68%

68%

64%

69%

70%

70%

71%

71%

74%

76%

80%

14%

9%

5%

23%

16%

8%

7%

6%

9%

6%

12%

16%

13%

13%

7%

7%

11%

15%

16%

10%

10%

15%

16%

9%

10%

9%

5%

6%

5%

5%

17%

19%

22%

6%

5%

13%

9%

18%

18%

9%

5%

5%

5%

6%

5%

8%

8%

5%

9%

14%

10%

10%

15%

14%

13%

10%

9%

7%

6%

6%

15%

17%

8%

8%

9%

7%

7%

7%

4%

4%

5%

4%

7%

5%

4%

5%

4%

4%

4%

8%

4%

6%

4%

16%

10%

4%

0% 50% 100%

HU

EE

LV

CZ

AT

ES

MT

PL

UK

PT

EU25

SK

FR

DE

IE

LT

SI

IT

NL

DK

LU

FI

BE

CY

SE

EL


The Electronic Stability Program also has a reasonable penetration rate, 40%, in new cars today. The majority of respondents in each country think that ESP is useful and they would like to have this system if they were to buy a car. The same group of countries as in the question concerning ABS are found above the EU average here: 81% of Greeks, 77% Swedish and 76% of Cypriots would like to have ESP in their new car.


- 24 -

Italian (71%), German (70%), French (69%) and British (67%) respondents are all found close to the EU average (68%) when it comes to the willingness to have ESP in their new car.


opinion: ESP, Electronic Stability Program - % country

66%

71%

73%

73%

75%

75%

77%

72%

77%

78%

79%

78%

79%

80%

80%

80%

81%

83%

85%

86%

86%

86%

87%

86%

87%

90%

7%

8%

7%

6%

6%

5%

7%

27%

20%

20%

14%

16%

18%

15%

17%

18%

16%

14%

14%

12%

11%

11%

9%

13%

11%

11%

10%

8%

9%

10%

9%

9%

8%

4%

4%

4%

4%

8%

5%

4%

4%

5%

6%

5%

4%

4%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

HU

AT

FR

BE

NL

DE

IT

SK

FI

EE

EU25

DK

UK

LU

MT

SI

ES

SE

CY

LV

LT

EL

IE

PL

PT

It is a useful system and you would like to have it on your next carIt is not a useful system but you would like to have it on your next carIt is not a useful system and you would not like to have it on your next car It is a useful system but you would not like to have it on you next car

Again, when only those respondents who answered to this question are taken into account, it is observed that the great majority of citizens in each Member State would like to have ESP in their new car. On the other hand, citizens of the Czech Republic (30%), Hungary (27%) and Austria (24%) appear most reluctant to have this system.


- 25 -

- Blind Spot Monitoring system provokes less enthusiasm but is still widely appreciated -

QE8.3 For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Blind Spot Monitoring

System: system warning the driver about nearby obstacles in the blind spot - % country

41%44%47%

45%49%50%49%

54%55%55%57%

57%

59%59%60%59%59%62%62%62%62%62%

66%65%67%

71%

35%

20%

12%

26%

28%

9%

24%

12%

17%

10%

13%

17%

20%

13%

23%

20%

15%

8%

11%

14%

14%

13%

9%

17%

15%

14%

5%

6%

5%

5%

11%

5%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

6%

7%

7%

17%

19%

5%

23%

13%

6%

17%

10%

9%

5%

16%

5%

18%

7%

9%

8%

10%

9%

15%

14%

9%

15%

14%

11%

14%

7%

6%

16%

7%

5%

6%

4%

5%

6%

4%

4%

5%

5%

6%

4%

4%

4%

8%

8%

6%

10%

5%

4%

4%

4%

6%

5%

7%

5%

4%

13%

9%

7%

9%

16%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

HU

EE

SK

FI

LV

IT

ES

AT

PL

MT

EU25

DE

UK

NL

SE

LU

PT

IE

SI

FR

DK

LT

EL

CY

BE


Also the blind spot monitoring system enjoys the confidence of most Europeans and the majority of respondents in 21 of the 25 countries polled would like to have it in their new car. However, However, 40% of citizens of Czech Republic and 39% of Finns would not like to have it in their next car. This result implies that despite its advantages this system is not perceived to be necessary to the same extent as ABS or ESP. Well over half of French (67%), Brits (62%), Germans (62%) and Italians (55%) would like to have blind spot monitoring system in their new car.


- 26 -


opinion: Blind Spot Monitoring System: system warning the driver about nearby obstacles in the blind spot - % country

49%54%56%56%59%

65%67%

68%

67%68%68%69%72%72%

71%73%74%71%74%75%

78%78%

77%79%

83%85%

6%

5%

6%

5%

42%

31%

32%

28%

27%

24%

22%

20%

17%

16%

23%

21%

19%

16%

19%

16%

18%

14%

15%

16%

17%

14%

15%

14%

11%

11%

5%

12%

6%

9%

9%

8%

8%

11%

11%

6%

8%

9%

7%

6%

7%

5%

4%

4%

7%

7%

4%

4%

5%

4%

5%

5%

4%

4%

7%

5%

7%

6%

4%

4%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

FI

SK

IT

HU

NL

DE

EU25

LU

FR

SE

AT

EE

UK

EL

SI

MT

DK

BE

ES

CY

LV

PL

IE

LT

PT

It is a useful system and you would like to have it on your next carIt is not a useful system but you would like to have it on your next carIt is a useful system but you would not like to have it on you next carIt is not a useful system and you would not like to have it on your next car

Again, an analysis in the group of those who answered to this question shows that, in many countries, there is a reasonable number of respondents who would not want to have this systems in their new car. This share reaches 25% in the United Kingdom, 27% in France, 29% in Germany and 37% in Italy.


- 27 -

- Adaptive headlights and obstacle and collision warning system receive moderate support –

QE8.4 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Adaptive Head Lights: system moving headlights when

turning into bends and adjusting the luminous intensity in order to avoid dazzling - % country

39%

41%

42%

47%

46%

47%

50%

53%

55%

50%

53%

54%

56%

57%

57%

60%

62%

67%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

34%

21%

22%

22%

22%

9%

11%

8%

16%

6%

6%

20%

8%

18%

18%

5%

7%

11%

4%

9%

10%

17%

9%

5%

5%

6%

6%

18%

18%

6%

6%

5%

5%

5%

23%

9%

13%

17%

17%

18%

7%

5%

10%

8%

14%

9%

5%

11%

8%

6%

11%

8%

13%

10%

15%

7%

17%

46%

49%

52%

53%

58%

61%

64%

66%

4%

4%

4%

4%

7%

5%

4%

6%

28%

13%

22%

16%

18%

24%

24%

7%

17%

20%

16%

9%

12%

9%

11%

19%

13%

8%

13%

4%

10%

4%

6%

4%

4%

4%

5%

4%

9%

5%

10%

7%

8%

4%

7%

15%

5%

15%

10%

6%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

FI

HU

EE

NL

AT

LU

FR

SK

SE

DE

LV

IT

EU25

BE

DK

ES

PL

MT

UK

PT

IE

EL

SI

LT

CY


Most Europeans perceive adaptive head lights as a useful system and a desirable piece of equipment in their car (53%). Half or more of respondents in 21 countries would like to have this system in their new car, Cypriots again topping the graph (69%). It can be observed that all Southern European countries except Italy are above the EU average in this respect. The majority of citizens of the United Kingdom (61%), Italy (57%), Germany (56%) and France (54%) would like to have this system in their new car.


- 28 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.4 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds...: Adaptive Head Lights: system moving headlights when turning into bends and adjusting the luminous

intensity in order to avoid dazzling - % country

47%

46%

50%

53%

54%

55%

59%

57%

60%

63%

63%

68%

71%

74%

74%

77%

79%

84%

6%

7%

6%

5%

41%

24%

20%

25%

19%

15%

16%

9%

18%

22%

21%

20%

18%

8%

10%

9%

12%

10%

6%

11%

12%

9%

8%

5%

6%

5%

57%

59%

60%

70%

78%

77%

82%

83%

4%

4%

5%

6%

8%

6%

6%

4%

5%

5%

6%

6%

31%

19%

21%

29%

27%

25%

28%

29%

21%

19%

21%

14%

15%

13%

14%

12%

11%

10%

12%

5%

11%

6%

6%

5%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

FI

NL

LU

FR

BE

HU

AT

SE

DE

IT

SK

EU25

DK

EE

EL

UK

MT

SI

CY

ES

IE

PL

LV

LT

PT

It is a useful system and you would like to have it on your next car

It is not a useful system but you would like to have it on your next car

It is a useful system but you would not like to have it on you next car

It is not a useful system and you would not like to have it on your next car

Again, when the results are considered for those who replied to this question, in several countries, opposition to this system appears high, especially in the Czech Republic (50%) and Finland (49%). In the United Kingdom, this share constitutes a quarter of those who replied and, in Italy (35%), Germany (37%) and France (40%), well over a third of respondents.


- 29 -

QE8.5 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Obstacle and collision warning: system detecting

potential collisions with other vehicles or obstacles based on current speed- % country

37%

41%

41%

46%

47%

48%

48%

51%

51%

52%

52%

52%

53%

53%

54%

54%

57%

63%

66%

5%

7%

24%

20%

24%

17%

15%

24%

16%

8%

9%

11%

18%

6%

8%

6%

11%

9%

7%

5%

15%

14%

14%

4%

4%

6%

6%

7%

6%

17%

23%

5%

5%

9%

9%

13%

5%

5%

17%

7%

7%

18%

10%

7%

6%

7%

8%

16%

14%

6%

11%

16%

7%

16%

72%

69%

61%

59%

55%

54%

54%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

9%

5%

4%

11%

33%

24%

10%

15%

12%

22%

21%

10%

16%

12%

16%

17%

13%

24%

19%

12%

27%

4%

4%

7%

8%

11%

18%

4%

8%

4%

5%

8%

19%

5%

16%

6%

8%

10%

7%

6%

11%

7%

14%

13%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

AT

FI

HU

EE

LV

NL

DE

UK

EU25

IT

MT

BE

ES

DK

FR

LU

PL

SK

SE

IE

SI

PT

LT

EL

CY


The obstacle and collision warning system is appreciated by the largest number of respondents in each Member State: they both perceive it as useful and would like to have it in their car if they were to buy a new one. Greeks and Cypriots are most in favour of this system in their cars. Considering the four most populous Member States, the majority would have this system in their new car, the share reaching 59% in France and Italy and 54% in the United Kingdom and Germany.


- 30 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.5 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Obstacle and

collision warning: system detecting potential collisions with other vehicles or obstacles based on current speed- % country

44%

45%

52%

52%

57%

55%

61%

62%

62%

60%

58%

63%

62%

65%

70%

63%

72%

76%

82%

30%

29%

18%

21%

19%

25%

23%

18%

15%

20%

16%

13%

8%

10%

7%

9%

9%

6%

70%

72%

71%

74%

75%

84%

86%

5%

5%

5%

4%

4%

6%

4%

4%

5%

5%

4%

5%

5%

5%

8%

5%

11%

5%

26%

27%

27%

25%

21%

17%

18%

11%

12%

17%

18%

17%

17%

11%

26%

40%

25%

4%

4%

8%

16%

15%

12%

5%

5%

5%

4%

4%

11%

20%

8%

14%

12%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

FI

NL

AT

DE

BE

HU

LU

UK

FR

IT

SE

EU25

SK

EE

MT

LV

DK

SI

ES

PL

EL

IE

LT

CY

PT





In the group of those who answered to this question, it can be again noted that citizens of the Czech Republic (51%) and Finland (50%) are most reluctant to have obstacle and collision warning in their new car. In Germany (39%), Italy (35%), France (34%) and the United Kingdom (34%), this share constitutes over a third of those who responded.


- 31 -

- The lane departure warning system is least valued by Europeans –

QE8.6 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Lane departure warning system: system warning the

driver when unintentionally leaving the lane- % country

29%

31%

34%

36%

38%

40%

40%

43%

47%

44%

44%

44%

46%

47%

47%

52%

55%

58%

62%

5%

5%

35%

24%

30%

13%

26%

24%

20%

17%

8%

29%

12%

25%

15%

11%

11%

7%

15%

14%

11%

13%

7%

13%

7%

6%

7%

6%

6%

6%

7%

22%

5%

5%

16%

5%

8%

10%

7%

13%

14%

6%

7%

7%

5%

16%

8%

16%

8%

47%

48%

51%

55%

57%

66%

67%

4%

6%

5%

7%

5%

6%

7%

7%

5%

5%

5%

5%

27%

22%

18%

26%

24%

18%

14%

17%

9%

14%

10%

15%

13%

14%

21%

30%

14%

4%

22%

13%

21%

20%

6%

10%

6%

4%

19%

5%

9%

18%

4%

8%

19%

8%

17%

4%

4%

11%

9%

9%

7%

11%

11%

5%

14%

13%

6%

6%

13%

0% 50% 100%

NL

CZ

FI

AT

HU

LV

LU

DE

EE

BE

UK

IT

SE

EU25

FR

SK

DK

MT

IE

PL

SI

LT

ES

PT

EL

CY


Two most important causes of accidents are lane changes and involuntary lane departure. Notwithstanding, this system receives the most divided response among EU citizens. Even if the largest share of respondents in 14 countries would like to have it in their car if they were to buy one, a substantial number would not have this system even if they consider it to be useful.


- 32 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.6 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Lane departure

warning system: system warning the driver when unintentionally leaving the lane- % country

31%

38%

38%

46%

46%

45%

48%

51%

49%

52%

52%

54%

55%

59%

55%

69%

67%

75%

78%

5%

43%

31%

29%

27%

30%

22%

24%

29%

13%

32%

15%

27%

19%

22%

24%

16%

23%

18%

15%

17%

15%

12%

10%

10%

9%

55%

65%

68%

71%

72%

80%

84%

5%

4%

7%

4%

4%

5%

8%

6%

5%

8%

9%

6%

6%

4%

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

7%

4%

30%

27%

19%

21%

21%

17%

19%

12%

16%

19%

18%

19%

16%

12%

34%

32%

24%

14%

15%

13%

8%

8%

7%

5%

4%

8%

0% 50% 100%

NL

CZ

FI

AT

BE

LU

DE

HU

IT

SE

FR

UK

EU25

LV

SK

DK

SI

EE

MT

IE

EL

LT

PL

CY

ES

PT





When focusing on the group of those having answered, it can be observed that in three countries (Finland, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands) the majority of respondents would not get a lane departure warning system if they were to buy a new car. In the Member States with largest populations (Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and France), the majority of those who responded to this question would like to have the system in their new car. However, the share of those who would not varies between 40% in the UK and 48% in Germany.


- 33 -

- The majority of respondents in each country would have eCall in their new car -

QE8.7 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Ecall, Emergency call system - % country

47%

53%

53%

54%

54%

54%

56%

55%

58%

59%

60%

56%

59%

61%

63%

67%

67%

71%

73%

12%

25%

25%

12%

19%

19%

8%

16%

7%

11%

6%

5%

8%

6%

19%

5%

6%

5%

22%

9%

18%

16%

8%

7%

10%

13%

8%

10%

5%

7%

62%

63%

66%

67%

62%

70%

79%

7%

4%

4%

4%

10%

5%

4%

4%

24%

15%

16%

12%

8%

12%

8%

10%

12%

10%

14%

10%

12%

11%

9%

8%

22%

25%

4%

4%

4%

9%

7%

5%

8%

7%

4%

4%

6%

4%

6%

4%

14%

5%

17%

19%

5%

8%

5%

10%

5%

8% 4%

9%

5%

13%

7%

6%

10%

16%

15%

6%

10%

13%

6%

13%

7%

0% 50% 100%

AT

EE

DE

CZ

HU

NL

LV

FI

ES

EU25

MT

IT

SK

PL

PT

UK

IE

LT

FR

LU

SI

DK

BE

CY

SE

EL


eCall receives fairly unanimous support among EU citizens with the highest number of respondents in each Member State except Austria perceiving this safety system as useful and being willing to have this equipment in their new car. Again, Greeks (79%) and Cypriots (73%) are most frequently of this view. 70% of French, 65% of British, 63% Italian and 56% of German respondents would like to have this system in their new car.


- 34 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.7 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Ecall, Emergency

call system - % country

58%

58%

60%

61%

64%

63%

69%

70%

72%

73%

74%

76%

76%

75%

78%

78%

83%

84%

84%

5%

16%

12%

9%

5%

8%

6%

78%

71%

78%

83%

83%

85%

88%

4%

4%

5%

11%

4%

5%

5%

8%

27%

27%

28%

21%

22%

19%

15%

17%

15%

15%

17%

12%

12%

11%

12%

11%

11%

10%

11%

30%

27%

20%

12%

14%

13%

10%

9%

5%

6%

4%

4%

6%

8%

7%

4%

5%

4%

4%

8%

4%

0% 50% 100%

NL

AT

DE

FI

CZ

IT

SK

EU25

HU

FR

BE

EE

UK

LU

MT

ES

DK

SI

SE

LV

IE

LT

CY

PL

EL

PT





When only those respondents who answered are considered, it can be noted that a significant majority in each country would like to have eCall in their new car. However, in Germany the share of those who would reject this system reaches 37% and 29% in Italy respectively.


- 35 -

- Half of Europeans would have a system providing real time traffic and travel information in their new car due to its usefulness –

QE8.8 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Real time traffic and travel information: system

providing real time information about the road network - % country

37%

40%

47%

50%

52%

54%

59%

8%

14%

9%

7%

15%

6%

14%

6%

5%

10%

20%

9%

5%

5%

6%

7%

8%

8%

6%

6%

18%

19%

23%

9%

6%

8%

16%

8%

8%

7%

14%

9%

16%

45%

40%

43%

53%

51%

62%

56%

54%

53%

47%

66%

49%

45%

54%

61%

62%

63%

67%

62%

4%

6%

6%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

4%

5%

6%

30%

34%

23%

15%

11%

25%

17%

26%

23%

13%

27%

17%

11%

17%

12%

16%

21%

12%

17%

29%

26%

21%

15%

16%

9%

10%

6%

5%

12%

6%

4%

4%

5%

4%

6%

4%

8%

5%

7%

5%

5%

11%

17%

4%

5%

14%

18%

15%

6%

14%

10%

8%

10%

13%

5%

6%

5%

11%

5%

7%

15%

6%

0% 50% 100%

AT

CZ

DE

HU

FI

EE

LV

IT

FR

EU25

ES

NL

SK

IE

MT

SE

LU

UK

PL

PT

CY

LT

DK

BE

SI

EL


Most Europeans perceive real time traffic and travel information to be a useful system and would like to have it in their new car if they were to buy one. Greeks (71%) and Slovenians (70%) top the table with most respondents being willing to have this system in their new car. The majority of Brits (59%), French (53%) and Italians (53%) would have real time traffic and travel information system. On the other hand, in Germany the largest share of respondents (45%) is not willing to have this system and 20% of French do not see the advantages of this system at all.


- 36 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.8 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Real time traffic

and travel information: system providing real time information about the road network - % country

45%

47%

60%

59%

5%

27%

16%

8%

15%

12%

22%

11%

11%

8%

11%

6%

6%

14%

8%

8%

8%

6%

6%

5%

5%

52%

49%

48%

62%

66%

71%

70%

70%

68%

83%

57%

58%

59%

68%

71%

74%

77%

81%

77%

51%

71%

71%

4%

4%

4%

5%

4%

4%

4%

7%

7%

5%

5%

4%

4%

5%

6%

5%

9%

7%

32%

40%

33%

29%

29%

30%

24%

30%

19%

22%

20%

19%

18%

18%

17%

19%

15%

14%

13%

14%

19%

34%

21%

19%

17%

7%

7%

8%

7%

5%

4%

0% 50% 100%

DE

CZ

FI

AT

FR

IT

NL

HU

EU25

SE

SK

LU

BE

EE

UK

CY

DK

IE

MT

EL

LV

ES

LT

SI

PL

PT





When the results are considered for those having answered, it is observed that the majority in each country, except Germany, would have this system in their new car. In Germany, the opinion is divided with 50% of respondent saying that they would have this system and another 50% saying that they would not.


- 37 -

- Along with the lane departure warning system, speed alert divides European opinion –

QE8.9 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Speed Alert: system detecting local speed limits on all

types of roads and warning driver if they exceed these - % country

31%

37%

39%

46%

49%

53%

58%

6%

20%

14%

10%

18%

8%

12%

21%

23%

8%

22%

10%

10%

11%

10%

7%

6%

18%

6%

19%

5%

5%

5%

16%

13%

10%

6%

8%

39%

39%

41%

50%

57%

56%

55%

49%

43%

71%

41%

44%

47%

50%

57%

58%

61%

61%

59%

4%

4%

7%

5%

4%

7%

4%

6%

4%

6%

4%

4%

28%

24%

18%

29%

27%

13%

26%

18%

15%

26%

25%

15%

11%

14%

15%

21%

11%

17%

12%

25%

35%

26%

26%

14%

11%

4%

4%

8%

14%

6%

9%

13%

6%

6%

4%

11%

22%

5%

9%

5%

7%

18%

6%

20%

7%

8%

9%

14%

4%

4%

5%

10%

5%

14%

7%

14%

12%

8%

11%

16%

6%

6%

5%

6%

10%

7%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

HU

DE

EE

AT

FI

NL

LV

LU

DK

IT

EU25

PL

SK

SE

BE

MT

LT

PT

ES

UK

FR

EL

IE

SI

CY


Along with the lane departure warning system, speed alert divides European opinion: even if most respondents consider it useful, a significant share would not want to have it in their new car. Furthermore, 63% of French and 60% of British respondents would like to have speed alert in their new car. On the contrary, the largest share of Germans (46%) would not be willing to have speed alert in their new car.


- 38 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.9 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion: Speed Alert:

system detecting local speed limits on all types of roads and warning driver if they exceed these - % country

36%

42%

49%

56%

58%

63%

70%

8%

6%

6%

24%

16%

22%

20%

25%

25%

14%

15%

12%

11%

11%

14%

13%

12%

14%

8%

48%

44%

44%

58%

70%

68%

65%

60%

54%

82%

49%

52%

55%

62%

70%

70%

78%

81%

77%

4%

5%

7%

4%

4%

7%

4%

5%

5%

4%

4%

6%

5%

5%

31%

32%

29%

32%

31%

29%

28%30%

31%

17%

22%

20%

19%

19%

17%

15%

14%

15%

14%

20%

42%

26%

26%

21%

18%

5%

7%

4%

9%

12%

9%

7%

11%

5%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

FI

DE

NL

LU

HU

AT

IT

DK

SE

BE

EU25

SK

EE

FR

EL

LV

PL

LT

MT

SI

UK

ES

IE

PT

CY





In the group of those who answered to this question, it is observed that the majority of respondents in every country, except the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and the Czech Republic, would have speed alert in their new car. In Germany, 51% would not have speed alert system even if 3 in 5 respondents in the German sample consider it to be a useful system. A quarter of respondents in the Netherlands and Luxembourg do not see any advantages in this system.


- 39 -

- A relative majority of respondents in each country would have a system monitoring the vigilance of the driver in their new car

because its usefulness – QE8.10 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds

to your opinion: Monitoring the state of vigilance of the driver: system warning the driver in case of drowsiness, distraction or carelessness

- % country

41%

41%

46%

53%

53%

58%

59%

17%

6%

10%

15%

9%

13%

12%

5%

5%

15%

8%

9%

5%

6%

5%

17%

5%

19%

9%

6%

13%

19%

7%

11%

10%

45%

44%

44%

53%

54%

61%

60%

58%

57%

44%

80%

48%

49%

57%

62%

62%

65%

78%

60%

4%

10%

5%

5%

7%

4%

4%

4%

31%

26%

20%

28%

15%

11%

18%

15%

21%

10%

24%

18%

11%

8%

16%

16%

11%

6%

9%

32%

35%

20%

12%

11%

19%

4%

5%

4%

16%

4%

8%

10%

11%

6%

9%

5%

22%

4%

9%

8%

4%

6%

18%

5%

6%

16%

8%

7%

10%

6%

7%

12%

8%

9%

15%

13%

15%

7%

6%

5%

13%

5%

12%

4%

5%

9%

7%

0% 50% 100%

CZ

AT

NL

HU

FI

DE

EE

LV

DK

EU25

UK

LU

IT

ES

PL

BE

FR

MT

SK

IE

PT

SI

SE

LT

CY

EL


A system that monitors the state and vigilance of the driver is also welcomed by most Europeans. Again, Greeks (81%) and Cypriots (79%) are most enthusiastic while 62% of French and 59% of Italians would like to have this system in their car. Germans (49%) are again found below the EU average.


- 40 -

RESPONDENTS HAVING ANSWERED: QE8.10 Please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds...: Monitoring the state of

vigilance of the driver: system warning the driver in case of drowsiness, distraction or carelessness - % country

48%

49%

51%

63%

69%

76%

6%

16%

7%

14%

13%

12%

17%

12%

11%

18%

10%

10%

80%

87%

85%

79%

77%

66%

61%

60%

58%

90%

60%

70%

70%

73%

78%

65%

64%

52%

49%

51%

11%

4%

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

4%

4%

5%

7%

4%

4%

16%

16%

21%

34%

32%

7%

10%

12%

14%

14%

13%

14%

18%

22%

18%

21%

20%

23%

17%

24%

25%

26%

21%

32%

41%

35%

11%

5%

5%

4%

7%

4%

5%

6%

12%

8%

9%

8%

0% 50% 100%

NL

CZ

FI

DE

AT

DK

HU

BE

LU

IT

EU25

FR

UK

EE

SE

SK

SI

LV

ES

MT

LT

PL

IE

PT

EL

CY





When the results are analysed for those having answered to this question, it is observed that a share equal to or more than half of respondents in each country would be willing to have a system monitoring the state of vigilance of the driver in their new car. This is the case for 69% of British, 68% of French, 67% of Italian and 55% of German respondents.


- 41 -

3.2 Focus on data privacy issues Source questionnaire: QE1211 After examining the perceived usefulness and desirability of various intelligent vehicle systems, a closer focus was placed on eCall and real time traffic and travel information systems. Both systems involve exchanging information between the vehicle and the infrastructure (emergency response and traffic management centers) and could therefore be considered as an intrusion into drivers’ privacy. Respondents were asked to what extent they find these systems inconvenient.

QE12a Cars can be equipped with an emergency call system which automatically calls the local emergency authorities when the vehicle is

involved in a serious accident...Do you personally regard this as… - % country

37%

37%

38%

38%

39%

39%

40%

41%

43%

44%

45%

45%

46%

46%

46%

49%

50%

51%

52%

52%

52%

53%

55%

56%

58%

61%

31%

30%

28%

22%

36%

26%

32%

20%

20%

39%

28%

32%

24%

19%

30%

32%

30%

28%

15%

24%

30%

28%

22%

32%

28%

21%

16%

8%

10%

8%

8%

9%

11%

5%

13%

10%

10%

7%

11%

10%

9%

5%

10%

7%

5%

9%

9%

12%

7%

7%

7%

5%

7%

7%

5%

9%

7%

6%

9%

5%

6%

9%

5%

10%

10%

8%

9%

18%

20%

24%

10%

19%

9%

29%

20%

11%

6%

13%

15%

6%

10%

8%

11%

20%

12%

6%

12%

5%

9%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

0% 50% 100%

DE

IE

LT

LV

CZ

PL

UK

EE

MT

FI

EU25

IT

AT

HU

SI

SK

FR

CY

ES

LU

NL

EL

PT

BE

SE

DK

You do not consider it as an inconvenience as far as you are concernedA minor inconvenience compared with the usefulness of the systemA real risk of intrusion that would deter you from having such a systemNone of these (SPONTANEOUS)DK

11 Half of the respondents were asked question QE12a: “Cars can be equipped with an emergency call system which automatically calls the local emergency authorities when the vehicle is involved in a serious accident. This system instantly transfers to them accurate vehicle position and other accident related data and thereby reduces the time for the rescue services to arrive. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?” and half QE12 b: “QE12b Cars can be equipped with an in-built system collecting information such as their location or speed, in order to produce real time traffic information. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?”.


- 42 -

- A great majority of respondents do not consider eCall to represent a real risk of intrusion in comparison with its usefulness–

In every country polled, the largest share of citizens do not regard the eCall safety system as inconvenient (45%) and in 9 countries this share constitutes the absolute majority. Those respondents who are likely to perceive the safety systems presented before (in sub-chapter 3.1) as useful also appear to consider eCall as no inconvenience at all with Danes topping the graph (61%), followed by Swedes (58%) and Belgians (56%). Even if a substantial share (28%) regards eCall as a minor inconvenience, they consider that its advantages would outnumber its disadvantages. Finnish respondents (39%) in particular are of this view. The number of those who consider eCall as a real risk of intrusion remains low (10%), the share reaching its highest level of 16% in Germany.

QE8.7 WOULD HAVE eCall WOULD NOT HAVE eCall*

QE12a Cars can be equipped with an emergency call system which automatically calls the local emergency authorities when the vehicle is involved in a serious accident. This system instantly transfers to them accurate vehicle position and other accident related data and thereby reduces the time for the rescue services to arrive. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?

A real risk

A minor inconvenience

Not an inconvenience

A real risk A minor

inconvenience Not an

inconvenience

EU 25 8% 31% 54% 19% 33% 37%

DK 3% 21% 72% 18% 29% 45%

PT 8% 24% 63% 7% 33% 53%

NL 4% 31% 63% 17% 34% 44%

SE 5% 31% 62% 17% 22% 58%

BE 5% 31% 62% 12% 40% 44%

HU 10% 23% 60% 19% 21% 51%

ES 6% 17% 59% 5% 24% 55%

EE 5% 28% 59% 9% 33% 39%

LU 10% 25% 59% 12% 29% 43%

AT 6% 29% 58% 19% 22% 43%

EL 11% 29% 56% 23% 32% 43%

FR 9% 33% 56% 16% 35% 45%

SK 3% 35% 55% 11% 34% 47%

IT 6% 32% 55% 8% 43% 30%

SI 6% 31% 55% 23% 37% 26%

MT 14% 24% 54% 21% 21% 36%

CY 9% 32% 54% 7% 31% 52%

LV 11% 28% 54% 8% 35% 35%

FI 7% 40% 51% 18% 41% 38%

PL 8% 31% 50% 15% 35% 37%

UK 10% 37% 49% 22% 37% 34%

CZ 4% 41% 49% 16% 36% 34%

LT 10% 31% 47% 27% 42% 24%

DE 9% 36% 45% 32% 28% 28%

IE 6% 37% 44% 28% 20% 31%

* In every country, except NL, FI and DE, the sample size is smaller than 150 respondents. Due to small bases, reliable statistical analysis is not possible and these results should be considered with care.


- 43 -

Those respondents who would like to have eCall in their new car (QE8.7) rarely consider this system to be a real risk (8%) and the majority of this group does not perceive it as a risk at all (54%). On the other hand, those who would not want to have eCall if they were to buy a car, consider this system to be a real risk significantly more often (19%). However, even in this group of respondents the largest share regards eCall as not an inconvenience at all (37%). These patterns apply also at country level.

- The majority of Europeans do not consider real time traffic information as an

inconvenience or they regard it as only slightly inconvenient - QE12b Cars can be equipped with an in-built system collecting

information such as their location or speed, in order to produce real time traffic information. Do you personally regard this as…?

% country

27%

27%

27%

30%

31%

32%

33%

33%

33%

35%

36%

36%

38%

39%

40%

40%

40%

42%

42%

43%

43%

44%

46%

46%

50%

54%

29%

31%

35%

32%

39%

25%

22%

32%

22%

29%

31%

24%

33%

31%

23%

15%

31%

31%

27%

28%

18%

16%

33%

26%

25%

22%

25%

16%

21%

19%

23%

13%

14%

26%

13%

18%

19%

12%

21%

10%

8%

12%

12%

15%

23%

18%

13%

9%

15%

9%

16%

9%

7%

9%

8%

6%

10%

7%

7%

8%

13%

12%

5%

8%

10%

6%

6%

5%

11%

21%

8%

11%

5%

24%

27%

7%

22%

12%

11%

22%

5%

12%

16%

30%

6%

7%

6%

8%

18%

21%

13%

11%

4%

4%

3%

4%

4%

0% 50% 100%

DE

IE

UK

CZ

FI

LT

EE

FR

LV

EU25

LU

PL

NL

IT

HU

MT

SI

SK

SE

DK

AT

ES

BE

PT

EL

CY

You do not consider it as an inconvenience as far as your are concernedA minor inconvenience compared with the usefulness of the systemA real risk of intrusion that would deter you from having such a systemNone of these (SPONTANEOUS)DK


- 44 -

The system that provides real time traffic information is less welcomed by EU citizens, even if the largest share in each country either perceive it as being no inconvenience at all (35%) or as a minor inconvenience (29%). Cypriots (54% no inconvenience), Greeks (50%), Portuguese (46%) and Belgians (46%) – citizens of countries that support intelligent vehicle systems in general - appreciate this system the most. The share of those who consider the real time traffic information system as a minor inconvenience outnumber those who perceive it as no inconvenience at all in five countries. Again, Finnish respondents (39%) in particular are of this view. It is worth noting that compared to eCall, there are significantly more respondents who consider this system as an intrusion and would not like to have it in their car. This is especially the case for French (26%) and German (25%) respondents. In the French case, this could be explained by the tighter regulation of traffic that has been introduced lately. Thus, it can be said that when the action of submitting information about the location, speed and functions of car concerns emergency situations such as accidents and is directly related to safety, this information exchange is highly acceptable. If the system is used for gathering and distributing real time information about traffic conditions etc., respondents are somewhat more reluctant to have it but a great majority still considers it to be useful.


- 45 -

QE8.8 WOULD HAVE REAL TIME TRAFFIC

INFORMATION SYSTEM WOULD NOT HAVE REAL TIME TRAFFIC

INFORMATION SYSTEM*

QE12b Cars can be equipped with an in-built system collecting information such as their location or speed, in order to produce real time traffic information. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?

A real risk

A minor inconvenience

Not an inconvenience

A real risk A minor

inconvenience Not an

inconvenience

EU 25 18% 32% 41% 24% 32% 34%

MT 14% 17% 59% 23% 19% 29%

CY 9% 26% 57% 4% 19% 68%

EL 17% 25% 54% 16% 37% 42%

PT 12% 28% 52% 9% 41% 43%

HU 9% 28% 52% 14% 30% 44%

ES 11% 17% 51% 14% 23% 38%

AT 15% 20% 51% 15% 20% 48%

EE 14% 29% 49% 27% 30% 29%

PL 12% 30% 48% 20% 36% 34%

BE 15% 35% 47% 15% 32% 47%

DK 17% 31% 47% 25% 27% 44%

SI 12% 34% 44% 16% 34% 32%

SK 13% 37% 44% 22% 30% 45%

IT 10% 37% 44% 12% 28% 39%

SE 21% 32% 43% 35% 24% 41%

LV 17% 31% 43% 23% 29% 41%

LU 19% 30% 43% 25% 36% 31%

NL 20% 36% 41% 24% 32% 37%

LT 15% 31% 39% 19% 26% 31%

CZ 18% 38% 38% 25% 35% 28%

FR 26% 34% 38% 30% 35% 31%

IE 15% 36% 35% 26% 38% 25%

UK 22% 42% 32% 30% 38% 29%

FI 26% 41% 31% 23% 41% 34%

DE 26% 31% 28% 30% 32% 29%

* In every country, except FR, NL, SE, CZ, SK, DE, the sample size is smaller than 150 respondents. Due to small bases, reliable statistical analysis is not possible and these results should be considered with care.

Again, there is a link between willingness to have real time traffic information system and perceived inconvenience: those who would like to have this system in their new car do not regard it as an inconvenience as often as those who would not like to have it. This pattern applies at country level as well with a few exceptions: in Germany and the United Kingdom, the largest share of those who would like to have this system regard it as a minor inconvenience while in 21 of 25 countries polled the highest number consider this system to be no inconvenience at all.


- 46 -

The socio-demographic analysis reveals some minor discrepancies between categories concerning in particular Real time traffic information system. eCall appears to inspire confidence fairly equally regardless of gender, age or occupation. When it comes to real time traffic information systems, males tend to somewhat more often perceive these systems as a minor inconvenience or a real risk than females. Also young respondents in parallel with students appear to find this system somewhat more intrusive than their older counterparts. This observation could be considered in relation to the finding that these groups appear to be in general less concerned about safety if they were to buy a car (Chapter 2). On the other hand, those respondents who have bought their car new are significantly less likely to perceive this system as intrusive than those who bought their car second hand.


- 47 -

3.3 Factors discouraging having intelligent systems in a car

- Intelligent vehicle systems are considered to be expensive - Source questionnaire: QE9

QE9a+b Which reason would put you off having these safety systems in your car? - % EU25

8%

21%

12%

16%

19%

9%

13%

11%

34%

11%

12%

19%

22%

23%

24%

51%

4%

11%

1%

3%

4%

2%

7%

5%

1%

4%

2%Other (SPONTANEOUS)

Cars are already safe enough

Undermines driver’s freedom

It’s difficult to understand how these safetysystems work

Fear of excessive visual and sound warnings

It's too expensive to service

Reduces driver’s responsiveness alertness bycreating an artificial feeling of being protected

Fear of unreliable electronic systems

It's too expensive to buy

Secondly Firstly TOTAL

In the context of intelligent vehicle systems enjoying a reasonable support among EU citizens, it is interesting to know the reasons why, according to them, the penetration rate i.e. the demand of most of these systems remains low. The reported reasons discouraging EU citizens from purchasing intelligent vehicle systems are first of all related to the costs of having (51%) and servicing (22%) them and then to their possibly distracting effect on the driver in terms of false feelings of security (23%) or malfunction of electronic systems (24%). The high costs of these kinds of systems appears to be the main factor preventing EU citizens from having them in their car. 34% of respondents name the purchasing costs as the first reason that puts them off having these safety systems in their car and a further 4% mentions servicing costs. Furthermore, the expense of servicing a car (21%) equipped with these kind systems becomes most important factor when the reasons that are ranked second are observed. Fear of unreliable electronic systems (11%) and an artificial feeling of being protected (13%) follow after.


- 48 -

It is worth noting that respondents do not appear to question the need to improve the safety of cars since only 4% mention that cars are already safe enough as a reason for being not willing to have intelligent safety systems in their car.

QE9 Which reason would put you off having these safety systems in your car? - TOTAL

It's too

expensive to buy


Reduces driver’s responsiveness

alertness by creating an

artificial feeling of being protected

It's too expensive to service

Fear of excessive visual and

sound warnings

It’s difficult to

understand how these

safety systems

work

Undermines driver’s freedom

Cars are already

safe enough

Other (SPONT.)

DK

EU25 51% 24% 23% 22% 19% 12% 11% 4% 2% 13%

BE 61% 26% 27% 15% 29% 10% 15% 8% 1% 3%

CZ 70% 16% 17% 30% 8% 14% 6% 7% 2% 10%

DK 39% 35% 39% 20% 21% 8% 13% 4% 3% 7%

DE 53% 25% 29% 18% 22% 13% 8% 5% 2% 11%

EE 34% 22% 23% 18% 10% 11% 11% 6% 1% 30%

EL 75% 16% 15% 42% 8% 15% 9% 6% 3% 3%

ES 41% 13% 9% 28% 11% 12% 9% 4% 2% 32%

FR 49% 38% 26% 16% 18% 13% 13% 6% 1% 7%

IE 43% 29% 20% 16% 15% 20% 22% 4% 1% 14%

IT 54% 25% 17% 29% 27% 16% 11% 4% 1% 7%

CY 58% 18% 15% 41% 18% 10% 11% 2% 1% 12%

LV 42% 20% 25% 22% 10% 12% 12% 2% - 25%

LT 46% 20% 20% 27% 15% 14% 14% 4% 2% 17%

LU 43% 27% 26% 17% 19% 13% 13% 9% 1% 11%

HU 54% 16% 18% 30% 11% 12% 8% 4% 2% 20%

MT 45% 21% 15% 29% 18% 13% 13% 5% 1% 18%

NL 46% 22% 43% 14% 24% 8% 17% 6% 3% 6%

AT 49% 26% 27% 17% 22% 17% 13% 5% 2% 9%

PL 50% 19% 17% 25% 19% 11% 10% 2% 1% 21%

PT 60% 15% 10% 35% 16% 16% 5% 4% - 17%

SI 58% 21% 17% 32% 10% 12% 8% 5% 6% 7%

SK 57% 24% 25% 18% 17% 17% 15% 7% 0% 9%

FI 33% 33% 43% 17% 23% 11% 12% 5% 4% 6%

SE 47% 29% 45% 19% 20% 10% 9% 4% 1% 6%

UK 47% 26% 29% 19% 17% 9% 13% 3% 4% 14%

When the total number of mentions is considered, in every country polled, with two exceptions, the high price of having these extra systems in a car is mentioned most often, especially in Greece (75%) and the Czech Republic (70%). In Finland, the highest share of respondents state that the feeling of false security created by these systems makes them reluctant to have them in their car (43%). In Denmark, an equal share (39%) refer to the false feeling of being protected and the price as a reason for not having intelligent vehicle systems. There are no significant discrepancies between socio-demographic groups or in terms of driving patterns. It can be pointed out that males are somewhat more concerned about the costs of buying and servicing these systems than females which can be related to the fact that males can be expected to be more likely to buy a car. This is also the case for those who drive their own car and thus they are probably more aware of the extra costs these systems might bring.


- 49 -

4. INFORMATION SOURCES

- Europeans trust specialised sources to give them information about intelligent vehicle systems-

Source questionnaire: QE10 As the eSafety Forum has asserted, consumers tend not to be aware of the existence of many intelligent safety systems12. In order to distribute information about these systems, it is useful to know from which sources they expect to get reliable and unbiased information. This fourth chapter depicts the most trusted information sources when it comes to intelligent car safety systems.

QE10 Suppose you were looking for information about these car safety systems. Who would you most trust? (ROTATE – MAX. 3 ANSWERS)

- % EU25

6%

8%

6%

7%

9%

9%

18%

22%

25%

26%

29%

30%

1%

0% 35%

DK

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

Would never look for such information, notinterested (SPONTANEOUS)

Driving schools

Public authorities

The media in general

Insurance companies

Family and friends

Car dealers

The specialised media (specialised press,specialised TV programmes, and specialised radio

Consumer associations

Car manufacturers

Automobile clubs

A preliminary analysis of the results gives an impression that EU citizens would trust specialised sources to give them information about intelligent security systems: 30% name automobile clubs as a reliable source and 29% car manufacturers. Consumer associations (26%) and specialised media (25%) follow next. Only 8% of EU citizens spontaneously state that they would never look for such information. It is worth noticing that some of these information sources are directly related to a certain target group. For example, only 6% of the total sample mention driving schools while 16% of respondents aged 15-24, the group that is most likely to attend a driving school, would trust this source.

12 The Final Report and Recommendations of the User Outreach Working Group (2006)


- 50 -


Automobile clubs

Car manufacturers

Consumer associations

The specialised

media (specialised

press, specialised

TV programmes,

and specialised

radio programmes)

Car dealers

Family and

friends

Insurance companies

Would never look for such

information, not interested

(SPONTANEOUS)

DK

EU25 30% 29% 26% 25% 22% 18% 9% 8% 6%

BE 27% 30% 31% 22% 39% 19% 16% 4% 1%

CZ 20% 41% 15% 30% 34% 15% 4% 7% 4%

DK 64% 17% 33% 25% 12% 19% 15% 4% 4%

DE 54% 28% 33% 33% 17% 15% 4% 5% 4%

EE 10% 22% 13% 16% 9% 11% 17% 8% 24%

EL 12% 59% 14% 31% 24% 23% 8% 7% 1%

ES 9% 18% 14% 13% 29% 21% 5% 11% 15%

FR 23% 33% 47% 24% 32% 19% 18% 5% 4%

IE 32% 42% 25% 23% 22% 21% 17% 3% 9%

IT 11% 29% 17% 23% 34% 16% 5% 5% 6%

CY 18% 52% 27% 26% 18% 24% 16% 12% 1%

LV 15% 35% 7% 18% 15% 22% 9% 14% 12%

LT 19% 45% 13% 23% 10% 19% 9% 3% 14%

LU 61% 23% 18% 26% 30% 13% 14% 2% 2%

HU 15% 26% 14% 17% 22% 19% 7% 18% 10%

MT 8% 42% 15% 13% 22% 29% 10% 7% 7%

NL 59% 14% 55% 28% 9% 17% 11% 3% 4%

AT 61% 25% 26% 21% 21% 16% 5% 5% 8%

PL 17% 30% 9% 26% 15% 22% 7% 11% 10%

PT 31% 32% 17% 13% 27% 15% 8% 14% 10%

SI 30% 34% 12% 28% 24% 29% 3% 9% 2%

SK 26% 57% 23% 35% 28% 24% 8% 5% 4%

FI 24% 39% 20% 38% 17% 14% 16% 4% 4%

SE 49% 25% 47% 35% 9% 17% 36% 2% 2%

UK 39% 28% 22% 21% 10% 20% 12% 14% 4%

= Mentioned most often = mentioned second most often

In 14 out of 25 countries polled, car manufacturers are mentioned most often as a reliable source of information. Greek (59%) and Slovakian (57%) respondents in particular trust this source of information. Automobile clubs are mentioned most often in 7 countries, especially in Denmark (64%) and Austria (61%). The highest share of respondents in France mention consumer associations (47%), while in Belgium (39%), Italy (34%) and Spain (29%) car dealers enjoy the confidence of the largest share of citizens.


- 51 -

Respondents were given the opportunity to name three sources that they trust the most. Males and managers are significantly more likely to name several sources of information they would trust and have most confidence in specialised sources such as automobile clubs. Females, on the other hand, would turn more often to a friend or a family member in order to get information about car safety systems. At the EU level, it can be observed that those who have bought a new car have more faith in car dealers (29%) than those who bought their car second hand (21%). The EU average is 22%. This places responsibility on car dealers since most of these security systems are available only in recent models that are more often sold as new. It can be also seen to break some stereotypical conceptions concerning car dealers as not being a reliable source of information.


- 52 -

5. THE ROLE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES This last chapter discusses the preferred measures public authorities should take if they wish to encourage the development of these car safety systems. Respondents were asked to name one action that they consider to be the best in terms of promoting the development of intelligent car safety systems.

- Tax incentives are considered to be the best way to promote the use of intelligent vehicle systems -

Source questionnaire: QE11

QE11 If the public authorities would like to encourage the development of these car safety systems, in your opinion, which of the following would be

the most preferable action? - % EU25

11%

5%

15%

15%

16%

37%

1%

DK

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

None of these (SPONTANEOUS)

Impose car safety regulations making suchsystems mandatory by law

Promote technological research and developmentin this field

Inform through large scale communicationcampaigns

Offer tax incentives for cars equipped with thesesystems

EU citizens appear to prefer “soft” steering methods in terms of financial incentives and awareness raising to normative actions such as legislation when it come to encouraging the use of intelligent car safety systems. The most preferred action is not surprising in the light of the reasons respondents give for putting them off having intelligent vehicle systems in their car, namely price. 37% consider offering tax incentives for cars equipped with these systems as the most preferable action. In chapter 3.3 it was observed that 51% of respondents mention that the price of these safety systems would make them reluctant to have them. Despite only 7% of respondents naming public authorities as a trustworthy source of information (Chapter 4), 16% think that large scale communication campaigns for promoting these car safety systems would be the most preferable action. Promoting technical research and development and making the use of these systems mandatory by legislation follow next, both at 15%.


- 53 -

QE11 If the public authorities would like to encourage the development of these car safety systems, in your opinion, which of the following would be

the most preferable action? - % EU25

17%

22%

29%

30%

30%

31%

31%

33%

34%

34%

35%

35%

37%

37%

38%

38%

42%

42%

42%

43%

44%

44%

46%

49%

49%

58%

32%

38%

30%

27%

18%

11%

14%

10%

23%

18%

15%

11%

16%

16%

18%

16%

9%

12%

8%

14%

19%

16%

9%

17%

7%

11%

12%

12%

16%

16%

9%

10%

12%

8%

12%

19%

10%

15%

15%

14%

18%

14%

21%

16%

11%

15%

17%

16%

17%

14%

12%

11%

12%

9%

5%

12%

16%

15%

17%

21%

19%

10%

18%

18%

15%

22%

17%

12%

18%

14%

31%

16%

11%

12%

18%

13%

14%

13%

6%

5%

9%

11%

5%

5%

6%

6%

8%

23%

19%

17%

14%

20%

29%

17%

24%

9%

16%

17%

10%

11%

7%

6%

14%

8%

10%

5%

6%

8%

6%

7%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

0% 50% 100%

ES

MT

PT

CY

LV

EE

HU

LT

CZ

IE

PL

UK

EU25

SK

FR

AT

DK

DE

SE

LU

EL

IT

NL

BE

SI

FI

Offer tax incentives for cars equipped with these systemsInform through large scale communication campaignsImpose car safety regulations making such systems mandatory by lawPromote technological research and development in this fieldNone of these (SPONTANEOUS)Other (SPONTANEOUS) DK

Overall, in 22 of 25 countries polled, the largest share of respondents name tax incentives as the preferred action, the share ranging from 58% in Finland to 30% in Cyprus. Citizens of Malta (38%), Spain (32%) and Portugal (30%) opt most often for information campaigns and almost a third of Swedish respondents (31%) mention research and development. Considering the country groupings, we can once again observe some differences between the old and new Member States: respondents living in the 15 old Member States mention more often tax incentives than respondents in the 10 new countries who in turn favour slightly more often research and development.


- 54 -

When looking at the socio-demographic categories, we can distinguish the groups who are most likely to support tax incentives: Men, those aged 25-54, those who have a higher level of education, managers and other white collar workers outnumber their counterparts in supporting tax incentives aimed at encouraging the development of intelligent car safety systems. This is also the group that was previously observed to drive more often and more kilometres per year. Regarding the respondents’ driving habits, there are no significant differences except those linked to socio-demographic discrepancies i.e. those who drive a company car and drive more than 20,000 km per year are most likely to name tax incentives as their preferred action that public authorities should take to encourage the development of intelligent car safety systems.


- 55 -

CONCLUSION The following general conclusions can be drawn based on the results of this study: There is a demand for intelligent systems in vehicles.

• Firstly, safety matters to EU citizens. 54% of respondents would consider safety if they were to choose one car over another. A quarter (24%) rank safety as the first criteria if they were to buy a car.

• In parallel, fuel consumption is considered to be an important factor when buying a car (53%). In fact, when all cost factors (fuel consumption, servicing costs, resale value) are considered together, they appear to constitute the most important factor.

• Thirdly, a comparative majority of Europeans perceive all the intelligent vehicle systems presented in this study as useful and would like to have them in their new car. The anti-lock breaking system (ABS 73%) and the electric stability program (ESP 65%) in particular are highly appreciated, which is most likely related to their familiarity among EU citizens.

• Also, eCall, a telematic system that requires information exchange between the car and the infrastructure, is well appreciated by respondents even if this system is not widely in use yet and it could be considered as an intrusion into drivers’ privacy

However, there are several factors that can be seen to complicate a full-scale implementation of both the already existing and new intelligent safety systems: The conditions for promoting/using intelligent vehicle systems vary significantly from one country to another.

• There are significant discrepancies between the new and old Member States in terms of driving patterns. Citizens in the EU15 more often have a driving licence and own their car than citizens of NMS. They also drive newer cars and buy their car as new more often.

• Concerning the Member States with a high potential of markets for intelligent systems, it is observed that French, Italian and British respondents are close to an average European buyer in their opinions while Germans appear more reluctant when it comes to willingness to have intelligent systems in their car.

The potential user group of intelligent vehicle systems appears to be limited.

• As most of the intelligent vehicle systems covered in this survey are available only in the high-end range cars and in newest models, they are not available for a large proportion of Europeans. Gender and socio-economic status appear to be the most distinctive indicators.

• Males, those with a high level of education, those in a managerial position or the self-employed have most often a driving licence and drive a big or a medium sized car that is between 1-5 years old. They are also more likely to appreciate intelligent systems in their car. The elderly tend to buy a new car but they also more rarely change their car.


- 56 -

The costs of these systems are considered to be too high. • The main reason for not having these systems is their price. The majority of

respondents (51%) find them too expensive to have in their car. A reasonable proportion of people are also concerned about the false feeling of being protected (23%) and unreliable functioning of these systems (24%).

Acceptance of intelligent vehicle systems is not evenly distributed between various systems and different respondent groups.

• Respondents tend to appreciate most systems they are familiar with and systems directly related to safety. 73% perceive ABS as a useful system and would like to have it in their car and 65% appreciate electronic stability programs. On the other hand, only 47% would like to have lane departure warning systems in their cars despite involuntary lane departure being one of the major causes of accidents.

• eCall is a well-accepted system (62% would like to have it) while 54% of respondents would like to have a real time traffic information system. This difference in acceptance might be explained by the extent to which these systems are considered as an intrusion into driver’s privacy: 45% of respondents do not consider eCall as an intrusion at all while 35% say the same about real time traffic information.

• Concerning eCall and real time traffic information system, it is observed that those who would like to have either of these systems in their new car also think more often that they do not cause them inconvenience while those who are not interested in having these system tend to more often regard them as a minor inconvenience or a real risk.

• Males and those who have a higher level of education as well as those who drive a lot and have bought a new car - the categories that are also likely to belong to the group of potential users of intelligent vehicle systems – tend to consider these systems more useful while those who indicate that they drive a small car or a second hand car are slightly less likely to consider these systems worth having in their car. In other words, the group that appears to have limited access to these systems also appreciates them less.

Finally, EU citizens trust professional/specialised information sources and expect positive incentives from the public authorities.

• Most EU citizens would trust automobile groups (30%) and car manufactures (29%) to give them information about intelligent vehicle systems followed by consumer associations (26%) and the specialised media (25%).

• Respondents appear to prefer “soft” steering methods in terms of financial incentives and awareness raising to normative actions such as legislation when it comes to actions that the public authorities should take to encourage the development of intelligent vehicle systems. Tax incentives for cars equipped with these systems would be appreciated by 37% of respondents, followed by information distribution through large scale communication campaigns at 16%.

ANNEXES

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER N°267 “Use of Intelligent Systems in Vehicles”

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Between the 7th of June and the 12th of July 2006, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between Taylor Nelson Sofres and EOS Gallup Europe, carried out wave 65.4 of the EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General Communication, “Public Opinion and Media Monitoring”. The SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER N°267 is part of wave 65.4 and covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density. In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available.

For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above. Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:

Observed percentages 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50%

Confidence limits ± 1.9 points ± 2.5 points ± 2.7 points ± 3.0 points ± 3.1 points

ABBREVIATIONS COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N°

INTERVIEWS FIELDWORK

DATES

POPULATION

15+ BE Belgium TNS Dimarso 1.032 14/06/2006 05/07/2006 8.598.982 CZ Czech Rep. TNS Aisa 1.011 13/06/2006 02/07/2006 8.571.710 DK Denmark TNS Gallup DK 1.045 12/06/2006 10/07/2006 4.380.063 DE Germany TNS Infratest 1.570 13/06/2006 08/07/2006 64.174.295 EE Estonia Emor 1.004 09/06/2006 03/07/2006 887.094 EL Greece TNS ICAP 1.000 12/06/2006 08/07/2006 8.674.230

ES Spain TNS Demoscopia

1.012 11/06/2006 08/07/2006 35.882.820

FR France TNS Sofres 1.009 13/06/2006 10/07/2006 44.010.619 IE Ireland TNS MRBI 1.000 07/06/2006 05/07/2006 3.089.775 IT Italy TNS Abacus 1.019 09/06/2006 10/07/2006 49.208.000

CY Rep. of Cyprus

Synovate 504 07/06/2006 04/07/2006 552.213

LV Latvia TNS Latvia 1.019 13/06/2006 12/07/2006 1.394.351

LT Lithuania TNS Gallup Lithuania

1.004 13/06/2006 04/07/2006 2.803.661

LU Luxembourg TNS ILReS 506 07/06/2006 04/07/2006 367.199 HU Hungary TNS Hungary 1.015 10/06/2006 30/06/2006 8.503.379 MT Malta MISCO 500 09/06/2006 06/07/2006 322.917 NL Netherlands TNS NIPO 1.019 10/06/2006 04/07/2006 13.242.328

AT Austria Österreichisches Gallup-Institut

1.000 08/06/2006 02/07/2006 6.679.444

PL Poland TNS OBOP 1.000 10/06/2006 04/07/2006 31.610.437 PT Portugal TNS EUROTESTE 1.011 09/06/2006 07/07/2006 8.080.915 SI Slovenia RM PLUS 1.027 10/06/2006 10/07/2006 1.663.869 SK Slovakia TNS AISA SK 1.143 13/06/2006 29/06/2006 4.316.438 FI Finland TNS Gallup Oy 1.031 07/06/2006 06/07/2006 4.279.286 SE Sweden TNS GALLUP 1.002 13/06/2006 10/07/2006 7.376.680

UK United Kingdom

TNS UK 1.313 08/06/2006 08/07/2006 47.685.578

TOTAL 24.796 07/06/2006 12/07/2006 1.663.869

QUESTIONNAIRE

QE1 QE1

1, 1,2, 2,3, 3,

4, 4,5, 5,6, 6,7, 7,

QE2 QE2

1 12 23 34 45 5

2 ou 3 de celles-ci autant l’une que l’autre (SPONTANE)NSP

NEW

(LIRE – UNE SEULE REPONSE)

Sur des autoroutes et autres voies rapidesEn villeSur des routes de campagne

NEW

POSER QE2 à QE6 SI "CONDUIT", CODE 1 à 3 en QE1 - LES AUTRES ALLER EN QE7

En considérant une semaine normale, diriez-vous que vous conduisez principalement … ?

Vous êtes titulaire d’un permis de conduire mais vous conduisez rarement ou jamaisVous n’êtes pas titulaire d’un permis de conduireAutre (SPONTANE)NSP

(MONTRER CARTE – LIRE – PLUSIEURS REPONSES POSSIBLES)

Vous conduisez votre propre voitureVous conduisez une voiture de sociétéVous conduisez la voiture de quelqu’un d’autre

Parlons maintenant d'un autre sujet.

POSER QE UNIQUEMENT EN UE25 - BG et RO ALLER EN QF1

Pourriez-vous me dire lesquelles des situations suivantes s’appliquent à vous.

2 or 3 of these equally (SPONTANEOUS)DK

NEW

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

On motorways and other fast highwaysOn urban roadsOn rural roads

NEW

ASK QE2 to QE6 IF "DRIVE", CODE 1 to 3 in QE1 - OTHERS GO TO QE7

Thinking in terms of how you drive on a weekly basis would you say that you mainly drive…?

You have a driving licence but you rarely or never drive

You do not have a driving licenceOther (SPONTANEOUS)DK

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

You drive your own carYou drive a company\ fleet carYou drive someone else’s car

Let's move on to another topic.

ASK QE ONLY IN EU25 - BG and RO GO TO QF1

Please tell which of the following situations applies to you.

QuestionnaireEB654COMMcompletENFR 34/57 07/06/2006

QE3 QE3

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 8

QE4 QE4

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 8

Autre (SPONTANE)NSP

NEW

Une grande voitureUne voiture familiale (Monospace)Une voiture de sportUn 4x4

Comment décririez-vous la taille de la voiture que vous conduisez habituellement ?

(MONTRER CARTE AVEC PHOTOS ET DESCRIPTION – UNE SEULE REPONSE)

Une voiture citadine\ petite voitureUne voiture de taille moyenne

50.000 km ou plusNSP

NEW

De 10.000 à moins de 15.000 kmDe 15.000 à moins de 20.000 kmDe 20.000 à moins de 30.000 kmDe 30.000 à moins de 50.000 km

Combien de kilomètres conduisez-vous par an ?

(LIRE – UNE SEULE REPONSE)

Moins de 5.000 kmDe 5.000 à moins de 10.000 km

Other (SPONTANEOUS)DK

NEW

Big sized car Family car (People carrier) Sport carSUV

How would you best describe the size of the car you usually use?

(SHOW CARD WITH PICTURES OF CARS AND DESCRIPTION – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

City car\ Small carMedium-sized car

50.000 km or moreDK

NEW

From 10.000 to less than 15.000 kmFrom 15.000 to less than 20.000 kmFrom 20.000 to less than 30.000 kmFrom 30.000 to less than 50.000 km

How many kilometres do you drive per year?

(READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Less than 5.000 kmFrom 5.000 to less than 10.000 km


QE5 QE5

1 12 23 3

QE6 QE6

1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 8NSP

NEW

3 ans4 à 5 ans6 à 10 ansPlus de 10 ans

(NE PAS LIRE – CODER DANS LA LISTE CI-DESSOUS – UNE SEULE REPONSE)

Moins d’un an1 an2 ans

NSP

NEW

Aujourd'hui, quel âge a cette voiture ? Par cela j’entends le nombre d’années depuis sa première immatriculation.

La voiture que vous utilisez habituellement, l’avez-vous eue neuve ou d’occasion ?

(SI LE REPONDANT N’EST PAS PERSONNELLEMENT PROPRIETAIRE DE LA VOITURE DEMANDER SI LE PROPRIETAIRE L’A EUE NEUVE OU D’OCCASION)

NeuveD’occasion

DK

NEW

3 years old4 to 5 years old6 to 10 years oldMore than 10 years old

(DO NOT READ OUT – CODE USING THE LIST BELOW – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Less than 1 year old1 year old2 years old

DK

NEW

And how old is this car now? By this I mean the number of years since first registration.

Did you get the car you usually use new or second hand?

(IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT OWN THE CAR ASK IF OWNER GOT IT NEW)

NewSecond hand


QE7a QE7a

QE7b QE7b

QE7c QE7c

NEW

NSP 16 16 16Autre (SPONTANE) 15 15 15Pas applicable (SPONTANE) 14 14 14Le coût à l’entretien 13 13 13La valeur de revente 12 12 12Le nombre de places 11 11 11Le respect de l’environnement 10 10 10La réputation de la marque 9 9 9Le niveau et la disponibilité d’équipements 8 8 8La consommation de carburant 7 7 7La solidité\ robustesse 6 6 6La sécurité 5 5 5Le confort 4 4 4Le volume intérieur 3 3 3L’esthétisme 2 2 2

EN PREMIER

EN DEUXIEM

E

EN TROISIEM

ELa performance moteur 1 1 1

(LIRE) QE7a QE7b QE7c

Supposons que vous vous apprêtiez à acheter une voiture neuve ou d’occasion aujourd’hui, quels sont les facteurs, mis à part le prix, qui vous feraient choisir un modèle plutôt qu’un autre ? En premier ?

Et en deuxième ?

Et en troisième ?

(MONTRER CARTE – UNE SEULE REPONSE PAR COLONNE)

A TOUS EN UE25

NEW

DK 16 16 16Other (SPONTANEOUS) 15 15 15Not applicable (SPONTANEOUS) 14 14 14Servicing cost 13 13 13Resale value 12 12 12Number of seats 11 11 11Environmentally clean 10 10 10Reputation of mark\ brand 9 9 9Level and availability of equipment 8 8 8Fuel consumption 7 7 7Durability\ robustness 6 6 6Safety 5 5 5Comfort 4 4 4Space inside 3 3 3Aesthetics 2 2 2

FIRSTLY SECONDLY

THIRDLY

Engine performance 1 1 1

(READ OUT) QE7a QE7b QE7c

Suppose you were to buy a car today, be it new or second hand, which factors, apart from the price, would make you lean towards one model over another? Firstly?

And secondly?

And thirdly?

(SHOW CARD – ONE ANSWER PER COLUMN)

ASK ALL IN EU25


QE8 QE8

It is not a usef

ul syste

m and you would not like to

have it on your next car

It is not a usef

ul syste

m but you woul

d like to


It is a

useful

system

but you would not like to

have it on you next car

It is a

useful

system

and you woul

d like to


Not applicabl

e (SPONTANEOUS

)

DK Ce n’est pas un

système utile et

vous ne

voudriez pas que votre prochain

e voiture en soit équipée

Ce n’est pas un

système utile mais vous voudriez que votre prochain


C’est un

système utile mais vous ne

voudriez pas que votre prochain


C’est un

système utile et

vous voudriez que votre prochain


Pas applicabl

e (SPONTANE

)

NSP

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 6

(LIRE – ROTATION HAUT EN BAS)

ABS, Système antiblocage : système empêchant le blocage des roues lors d’un freinage brusque et permettant ainsi le maintien du véhicule sur la route

ESP, Système électronique de stabilité : Système de stabilisation du véhicule qui l’empêche de déraper dans des situations critiques

Je vais maintenant vous énumérer une liste de systèmes de sécurité pour voitures, dont certains existent déjà et d’autres sont en cours de développement. Pour chacun de ces systèmes, pourriez-vous me dire lequel correspond le mieux à votre opinion.

(MONTRER CARTE AVEC REPONSES ET DEFINITIONS AINSI QUE L’ECHELLE – UNE REPONSE PAR LIGNE)

(READ OUT – TOP BOTTOM ROTATION)

ABS, Anti-Lock Breaking System: system preventing the blocking of the wheels when breaking and thus allowing the car to stay on track

ESP, Electronic Stability Program: system stabilising the vehicle and preventing skidding in critical situations

I will read out a list of car safety systems, some of which already exist and others which are currently under development. For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion.

(SHOW CARD WITH ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS AND SHOW CARD WITH SCALE – ONE ANSWER PER LINE)


3 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 6

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 1 2 3 4 5 6

Système en temps réel d’information et de navigation : système donnant des informations en temps réel sur les réseaux routiers tels que des bouchons et des conditions météorologiques, permettant de choisir un itinéraire alternatif

Alerte de vitesse : système détectant les limitations de vitesse sur tout type de route et alertant le conducteur s’il\ elle est en excès de vitesse

Surveillance de l’état du conducteur : système alertant le conducteur en cas de somnolence, de distraction ou d’inattention

NEW

Projecteurs auto-directionnels : système d’orientation des phares dans les virages et de réglage de l’intensité lumineuse pour éviter l’éblouissementAlerte de risque de collision : système détectant les risques de collision avec d’autres véhicules ou obstacles en fonction de la vitesseAlerte de franchissement de ligne : système qui alerte le conducteur lorsqu’il quitte involontairement sa bande de circulationEcall, appel électronique d’urgence : système appelant automatiquement les services de secours locaux quand le véhicule est impliqué dans un accident grave et transmettant instantanément la position actuelle du véhicule et les autres informations relatives à l’accident, réduisant ainsi le temps mis par les secours pour arriver

Système de surveillance des angles morts : système alertant le conducteur de la présence d’un obstacle dans l’angle mort

Real time traffic and travel information: system providing real time information about the road network such as traffic jams and weather conditions, allowing to choose an alternative itinerary

Speed Alert: system detecting local speed limits on all types of roads and warning driver if they exceed these

Monitoring the state of vigilance of the driver: system warning the driver in case of drowsiness, distraction or carelessness

NEW

Adaptive Head Lights: system moving headlights when turning into bends and adjusting the luminous intensity in order to avoid dazzling

Obstacle and collision warning: system detecting potential collisions with other vehicles or obstacles based on current speedLane departure warning system: system warning the driver when unintentionally leaving the lane

Ecall, Emergency call system: system automatically calling the local emergency authorities and instantly transferring to them accurate vehicle position and other accident related data when the vehicle is involved in a serious accident and thus reducing the time for the rescue services to arrive

Blind Spot Monitoring System: system warning the driver about nearby obstacles in the blind spot


QE9a QE9a

QE9b QE9b

NEW

Autre (SPONTANE) 9 9NSP 10 10

C'est trop cher à l’entretien 7 7Les voitures sont déjà suffisamment sûres 8 8

Il est difficile de comprendre le fonctionnement de ces systèmes électroniques

5 5

C'est trop cher à l’achat 6 6

La crainte d'alertes sonores et visuelles excessives 3 3La crainte que les systèmes électroniques soient peu fiables

4 4

Cela réduit la liberté du conducteur 1 1Cela réduit la réactivité et la vigilance du conducteur par la création d’un sentiment de sécurité artificiel

2 2

(LIRE) QE9a QE9bEN PREMIER EN DEUXIEME

Parmi les raisons suivantes, laquelle vous dissuaderait le plus d’accepter ces systèmes de sécurité dans votre voiture ? En premier ?

Et en deuxième ?

(MONTRER CARTE – UNE REPONSE PAR COLONNE)

NEW

Other (SPONTANEOUS) 9 9DK 10 10

It's too expensive to service 7 7Cars are already safe enough 8 8

It’s difficult to understand how these safety systems work 5 5

It's too expensive to buy 6 6

Fear of excessive visual and sound warnings 3 3Fear of unreliable electronic systems 4 4

Undermines driver’s freedom 1 1Reduces driver’s responsiveness and alertness by creating an artificial feeling of being protected

2 2

(READ OUT) QE9a QE9bFIRSTLY SECONDLY

Which of the following factors would most put you off having these kind of safety systems in your car? Firstly?

And secondly?

(SHOW CARD – ONE ANSWER PER COLUMN)


QE10 QE10

1, 1,2, 2,3, 3,4, 4,5, 5,

6, 6,7, 7,8, 8,9, 9,

10, 10,

11, 11,12, 12,13, 13,

QE11 QE11

1 1

2 2

3 34 45 56 67 7

NEW

Promouvoir la recherche et le développement dans ce domaineAucun de ceux-ci (SPONTANE)Autre (SPONTANE) NSP

(MONTRER CARTE – LIRE – UNE SEULE REPONSE)

Informer par de grandes campagnes de communicationOffrir des avantages fiscaux pour les voitures équipées de ces systèmes

Imposer une législation sur la sécurité des voitures rendant de tels systèmes légalement obligatoires

NSP

NEW

Si les autorités publiques voulaient encourager le développement de ces systèmes de sécurité pour voitures, à votre avis, quelle action parmi les suivantes serait la plus souhaitable ?

Les compagnies d’assuranceLa famille et les amisNe cherche jamais ce genre d’information, n’est pas intéressé(e) (SPONTANE)Autre (SPONTANE)

Les médias en généralLes médias spécialisés (presse ou programmes télé ou programmes radio spécialisés)Les concessionnairesLes auto-écoles

Les autorités publiquesLes fabricants de voituresLes clubs automobiles (ADAPTER LOCALEMENT) Les associations de consommateurs

Supposons que vous cherchiez des informations sur ces systèmes de sécurité. A qui feriez-vous le plus confiance ?

(MONTRER CARTE – LIRE – ROTATION – MAX. 3 REPONSES)

NEW

Promote technological research and development in this fieldNone of these (SPONTANEOUS)Other (SPONTANEOUS) DK

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Inform through large scale communication campaignsOffer tax incentives for cars equipped with these systems

Impose car safety regulations making such systems mandatory by law

DK

NEW

If the public authorities would like to encourage the development of these car safety systems, in your opinion, which of the following would be the most preferable action?

Insurance companiesFamily and friendsWould never look for such information, not interested (SPONTANEOUS)

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

The media in generalThe specialised media (specialised press, specialised TV programmes, and specialised radio programmes)Car dealersDriving schools

Public authoritiesCar manufacturersAutomobile clubs (USE APPROPRIATE NAME IN EACH COUNTRY)Consumer associations

Suppose you were looking for information about these car safety systems. Who would you most trust?

(SHOW CARD – READ OUT – ROTATE – MAX. 3 ANSWERS)


QE12a QE12a

1 12 2

3 34 45 5

QE12b QE12b

1 12 2

3 34 45 5

NEW

Un inconvénient mineur comparé à l’utilité de ce systèmeVous considérez que ce n'est pas un inconvénient en ce qui vous concerne

Aucun de ceux-ci (SPONTANE)NSP

Les voitures peuvent être équipées d’un système intégré qui collecte des informations, telles que leurs coordonnées géographiques et leur vitesse, afin d’obtenir des informations sur la circulation en temps réel. Certaines personnes pourraient considérer ce système comme une intrusion dans la vie privée du conducteur. Personnellement, considérez-vous cela comme … ?


Un véritable risque d'intrusion qui vous découragerait d’avoir un tel système

Aucun de ceux-ci (SPONTANE)NSP

NEW

POSER QE12b UNIQUEMENT AU SPLIT B


Un véritable risque d'intrusion qui vous découragerait de posséder un tel systèmeUn inconvénient mineur comparé à l’utilité de ce systèmeVous considérez que ce n'est pas un inconvénient en ce qui vous concerne

POSER QE12a UNIQUEMENT AU SPLIT A

Les voitures peuvent être équipées d’un système d'appel d'urgence appelant automatiquement les services de secours locaux quand le véhicule est impliqué dans un accident grave. Ce système transmet instantanément la position actuelle du véhicule et les autres informations relatives à l’accident, réduisant ainsi le temps mis par les secours pour arriver. Certaines personnes peuvent considérer ce système comme une intrusion dans la vie privée du conducteur. Personnellement, considérez-vous cela comme … ?

NEW

A minor inconvenience compared with the usefulness of the systemYou do not consider it as an inconvenience as far as you are concerned

None of these (SPONTANEOUS)DK

Cars can be equipped with an in-built system collecting information such as their location or speed, in order to produce real time traffic information. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?


A real risk of intrusion that would deter you from having such a system

None of these (SPONTANEOUS)DK

NEW

ASK QE12b ONLY TO SPLIT B


A real risk of intrusion that would deter you from having such a system

A minor inconvenience compared with the usefulness of the systemYou do not consider it as an inconvenience as far as you are concerned

ASK QE12a ONLY TO SPLIT A

Cars can be equipped with an emergency call system which automatically calls the local emergency authorities when the vehicle is involved in a serious accident. This system instantly transfers to them accurate vehicle position and other accident related data and thereby reduces the time for the rescue services to arrive. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?


TABLES

TOTALYou drive your own

carYou drive a

company\ fleet carYou drive someone

else’s car

You have a driving licence but you rarely

or never drive

You do not have a driving license

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 57% 4% 5% 9% 29% 0% 0%BE 1032 64% 8% 7% 7% 19% 1% 0%CZ 1011 41% 6% 8% 15% 35% 0% - DK 1045 60% 9% 8% 14% 19% 1% - D-W 1053 65% 2% 5% 10% 20% 1% 0%DE 1570 64% 3% 5% 10% 21% 0% 0%D-E 517 58% 4% 4% 12% 25% 0% 0%EE 1004 35% 7% 6% 12% 46% 0% 0%EL 1000 44% 2% 4% 9% 43% 0% - ES 1012 48% 2% 2% 7% 42% 1% 0%FR 1009 69% 6% 6% 8% 21% 0% 0%IE 1000 64% 1% 4% 2% 29% 1% 1%IT 1019 65% 5% 7% 7% 18% 0% 0%CY 504 71% 7% 10% 3% 18% 2% 0%LV 1019 25% 5% 4% 10% 59% - 1%LT 1004 34% 3% 3% 10% 52% 0% 1%LU 506 75% 4% 9% 3% 16% 1% - HU 1015 30% 3% 3% 13% 52% 1% 0%MT 500 55% 4% 6% 6% 37% - - NL 1019 64% 8% 4% 8% 21% 1% - AT 1000 61% 4% 6% 12% 20% 1% 0%PL 1000 31% 3% 4% 14% 51% 0% 0%PT 1011 50% 3% 2% 5% 41% - 1%SI 1027 67% 4% 5% 7% 23% 1% - SK 1143 34% 6% 5% 20% 41% 1% 1%FI 1031 60% 6% 6% 9% 24% 1% - SE 1002 66% 10% 12% 10% 16% 0% 0%UK 1313 59% 5% 7% 7% 29% 0% 0%

QE1 Please tell which of the following situations applies to you. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

TOTALOn motorways and other fast

highwaysOn urban roads On rural roads

2 or 3 of these equally (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

UE25 EU25 15357 13% 44% 22% 22% 0%BE 756 15% 25% 37% 23% 0%CZ 510 10% 42% 30% 18% - DK 707 14% 26% 33% 28% 0%D-W 742 11% 30% 32% 27% 0%DE 1086 10% 31% 30% 28% 0%D-E 331 8% 36% 25% 31% - EE 419 7% 24% 25% 43% 1%EL 481 13% 45% 3% 39% 0%ES 505 18% 34% 14% 34% - FR 719 12% 35% 32% 21% - IE 672 12% 32% 30% 26% 0%IT 764 16% 71% 3% 10% - CY 384 17% 51% 4% 28% - LV 313 7% 48% 18% 26% - LT 373 10% 69% 18% 2% - LU 406 19% 18% 37% 25% 0%HU 341 7% 41% 24% 26% 0%MT 284 22% 27% 2% 49% - NL 730 34% 33% 27% 7% - AT 682 9% 28% 28% 35% 0%PL 353 3% 60% 13% 23% 0%PT 537 11% 27% 24% 37% 0%SI 721 6% 45% 13% 36% - SK 454 9% 51% 18% 21% 1%FI 682 16% 45% 23% 16% 0%SE 754 11% 23% 42% 23% 0%UK 828 10% 54% 21% 15% 0%

(IF 'DRIVE', CODE 1 TO 3 IN QE1)

QE2 Thinking in term on how you drive on a weekly basis would you say that you mainly drive…?

TOTAL Less than 5.000 kmFrom 5.000 to less

than 10.000 kmFrom 10.000 to less




than 50.000 km50.000 km or more DK

UE25 EU25 15357 15% 27% 23% 15% 9% 4% 2% 3%BE 756 13% 25% 21% 15% 16% 7% 3% 0%CZ 510 20% 27% 17% 15% 11% 5% 4% 2%DK 707 12% 21% 22% 18% 16% 6% 3% 1%D-W 742 15% 33% 25% 13% 9% 3% 1% 1%DE 1086 14% 34% 24% 13% 9% 3% 2% 1%D-E 331 8% 39% 22% 14% 11% 4% 2% 0%EE 419 13% 23% 19% 13% 16% 6% 8% 2%EL 481 9% 22% 22% 17% 15% 9% 7% - ES 505 18% 23% 22% 14% 7% 2% 4% 10%FR 719 17% 28% 23% 14% 10% 3% 2% 3%IE 672 11% 22% 23% 22% 15% 4% 2% 2%IT 764 11% 27% 28% 18% 8% 3% 1% 3%CY 384 12% 30% 17% 10% 10% 6% 5% 10%LV 313 19% 19% 16% 16% 13% 6% 9% 2%LT 373 22% 27% 16% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4%LU 406 14% 19% 16% 18% 19% 7% 2% 5%HU 341 22% 23% 21% 16% 9% 5% 4% 0%MT 284 8% 19% 14% 6% 5% 4% 2% 42%NL 730 17% 25% 19% 15% 11% 9% 3% 1%AT 682 11% 30% 26% 15% 9% 3% 1% 5%PL 353 23% 27% 19% 11% 8% 6% 3% 3%PT 537 18% 22% 16% 13% 11% 8% 6% 6%SI 721 15% 26% 26% 15% 11% 5% 1% 1%SK 454 25% 24% 16% 13% 8% 9% 4% 1%FI 682 15% 24% 19% 15% 15% 7% 4% 1%SE 754 22% 17% 21% 16% 11% 7% 3% 3%UK 828 15% 26% 21% 20% 8% 5% 2% 2%


QE3 How many kilometres do you drive per year?

TOTAL City car\ Small car Medium-sized car Big sized car Family car (People

carrier) Sport car SUV

Other (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

UE25 EU25 15357 27% 48% 12% 9% 1% 2% 1% 0%BE 756 22% 43% 16% 13% 1% 4% 1% - CZ 510 27% 51% 7% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0%DK 707 21% 48% 14% 14% - 3% 0% - D-W 742 26% 53% 9% 9% 1% 1% 1% 0%DE 1086 26% 54% 9% 8% 1% 1% 1% 0%D-E 331 26% 58% 7% 7% 1% 1% 1% - EE 419 16% 58% 10% 9% 1% 3% 2% 1%EL 481 21% 50% 13% 9% 2% 3% 2% - ES 505 28% 48% 14% 5% 1% 2% 2% - FR 719 37% 40% 10% 11% 1% 1% 0% - IE 672 26% 54% 12% 3% 1% 3% 2% 0%IT 764 27% 50% 11% 9% 1% 2% 1% 0%CY 384 21% 45% 11% 5% 3% 14% 1% 0%LV 313 12% 51% 19% 14% 1% 3% - - LT 373 12% 60% 12% 13% 0% 2% 1% - LU 406 23% 42% 13% 14% 3% 6% 0% - HU 341 31% 51% 9% 7% - - 1% 1%MT 284 28% 41% 14% 13% 1% 4% 0% - NL 730 24% 47% 8% 16% 1% 3% 2% - AT 682 25% 53% 14% 6% 1% 1% 0% 0%PL 353 27% 54% 13% 4% - 0% 1% - PT 537 42% 43% 9% 5% - 1% - 0%SI 721 29% 52% 12% 5% 1% 1% 1% - SK 454 25% 59% 6% 8% 1% 0% 1% - FI 682 13% 51% 14% 13% 1% 5% 2% - SE 754 14% 45% 29% 8% 0% 3% 1% - UK 828 25% 43% 16% 10% 2% 4% 0% 0%


QE4 How would you best describe the size of the car you usually use?

TOTAL New Second hand DKUE25 EU25 15357 46% 53% 1%BE 756 58% 41% 0%CZ 510 37% 62% 1%DK 707 41% 58% 1%D-W 742 42% 58% 0%DE 1086 43% 57% 1%D-E 331 47% 52% 1%EE 419 18% 81% 1%EL 481 75% 25% 1%ES 505 77% 22% 1%FR 719 34% 66% 0%IE 672 35% 64% 1%IT 764 69% 30% 1%CY 384 42% 57% 0%LV 313 11% 89% - LT 373 4% 95% 1%LU 406 74% 26% 0%HU 341 36% 61% 3%MT 284 65% 35% 0%NL 730 33% 67% - AT 682 48% 50% 2%PL 353 25% 73% 1%PT 537 48% 50% 2%SI 721 45% 54% 0%SK 454 49% 51% 0%FI 682 33% 66% 1%SE 754 34% 65% 1%UK 828 33% 67% 0%


QE5 Did you get the car you usually use new or second hand?

TOTAL Less than 1 year old 1 year old 2 years old 3 years old 4 to 5 years old 6 to 10 years oldMore than 10 years

oldDK

UE25 EU25 15357 5% 6% 10% 12% 19% 28% 19% 1%BE 756 8% 7% 10% 11% 20% 29% 15% 0%CZ 510 2% 2% 7% 11% 23% 32% 23% 1%DK 707 7% 5% 8% 8% 12% 34% 25% 1%D-W 742 5% 7% 12% 13% 17% 27% 19% 0%DE 1086 5% 6% 12% 13% 18% 27% 18% 0%D-E 331 4% 5% 10% 15% 22% 28% 16% 1%EE 419 4% 2% 4% 8% 9% 30% 43% 1%EL 481 5% 7% 9% 12% 20% 24% 24% - ES 505 5% 8% 14% 15% 20% 22% 13% 3%FR 719 6% 4% 7% 6% 17% 33% 27% 0%IE 672 9% 10% 14% 14% 21% 27% 4% 1%IT 764 7% 9% 13% 19% 19% 23% 9% 2%CY 384 6% 3% 6% 8% 18% 29% 28% 1%LV 313 3% 1% 2% 3% 4% 24% 62% 1%LT 373 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 20% 72% 1%LU 406 13% 11% 13% 13% 17% 24% 8% 1%HU 341 4% 5% 9% 11% 15% 27% 29% 1%MT 284 4% 4% 6% 7% 12% 37% 28% 2%NL 730 5% 5% 7% 10% 20% 35% 18% 0%AT 682 3% 6% 19% 20% 26% 19% 6% 1%PL 353 2% 2% 5% 3% 14% 38% 34% 1%PT 537 5% 5% 6% 8% 22% 29% 24% 1%SI 721 4% 4% 8% 10% 19% 33% 21% 0%SK 454 4% 4% 6% 12% 21% 29% 25% 0%FI 682 7% 5% 8% 9% 12% 28% 30% 1%SE 754 6% 5% 6% 8% 13% 31% 29% 1%UK 828 5% 5% 9% 13% 23% 30% 14% 0%


QE6 And how old is this car now? By this I mean the number of years since first registration. (DO NOT READ OUT)

TOTAL

En

gin

e

perf

orm

an

ce

Aest

heti

cs

Sp

ace

in

sid

e

Co

mfo

rt

Safe

ty

Du

rab

ilit

y\

ro

bu

stn

ess

Fu

el

con

sum

pti

on

Level

an

d

avail

ab

ilit

y o

f eq

uip

men

t

Rep

uta

tio

n o

f m

ark

\ b

ran

d

En

vir

on

men

tall

y

clean

Nu

mb

er

of

seats

Resa

le v

alu

e

Serv

icin

g c

ost

No

t ap

pli

cab

le

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

Oth

er

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 10% 8% 5% 7% 24% 6% 18% 1% 4% 3% 1% 1% 2% 6% 1% 4%BE 1032 7% 11% 9% 13% 24% 5% 15% - 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 3% 2% 0%CZ 1011 8% 9% 4% 6% 21% 13% 17% 1% 4% 1% 0% 2% 4% 6% 1% 4%DK 1045 6% 9% 8% 6% 28% 8% 16% 1% 2% 7% 1% 2% 1% 4% 0% 1%D-W 1053 7% 9% 7% 3% 25% 7% 26% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 5% 1% 2%DE 1570 7% 9% 7% 3% 25% 7% 26% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 5% 1% 2%D-E 517 7% 9% 6% 3% 28% 5% 25% 2% 1% 3% 1% 0% 2% 5% 1% 3%EE 1004 7% 1% 3% 8% 11% 10% 23% 0% 4% 0% 1% 0% 2% 21% 1% 7%EL 1000 17% 7% 1% 3% 45% 7% 4% 0% 6% 1% 0% 0% 3% 3% 0% 1%ES 1012 17% 6% 2% 6% 28% 2% 9% 1% 5% 2% 0% 0% 3% 5% 1% 12%FR 1009 7% 9% 5% 12% 21% 6% 18% 0% 3% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4% 1% 3%IE 1000 15% 2% 5% 10% 25% 4% 13% 1% 9% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 2% 6%IT 1019 16% 16% 6% 8% 21% 6% 17% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 4%CY 504 18% 6% 2% 6% 43% 1% 9% 1% 3% 1% - 1% 1% 7% - 1%LV 1019 11% 7% 1% 6% 16% 4% 23% 2% 4% 0% 1% 0% 3% 15% - 6%LT 1004 18% 10% 1% 8% 11% 9% 21% 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 11%LU 506 8% 10% 12% 7% 29% 3% 14% 0% 2% 3% 2% - 4% 2% 2% 1%HU 1015 7% 5% 4% 2% 22% 1% 16% 1% 5% 1% 2% 2% 12% 13% 1% 7%MT 500 14% 3% 5% 8% 11% 5% 34% 2% 5% 2% - 2% 1% 5% 0% 4%NL 1019 5% 16% 14% 9% 21% 5% 10% 1% 4% 4% 2% 1% - 6% 1% 1%AT 1000 13% 5% 6% 7% 21% 6% 20% 1% 4% 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 2% 7%PL 1000 6% 4% 2% 9% 26% 7% 22% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 1% 13% 1% 3%PT 1011 12% 4% 4% 7% 28% 4% 16% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% 9% 1% 5%SI 1027 11% 9% 3% 8% 35% 2% 17% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 4% 4% 1% 2%SK 1143 13% 8% 2% 4% 34% 0% 23% 0% 5% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 5%FI 1031 6% 3% 7% 6% 33% 11% 16% 1% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1%SE 1002 5% 6% 6% 8% 34% 7% 20% 0% 3% 6% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 1%UK 1313 11% 3% 6% 7% 16% 4% 16% 1% 8% 5% 3% 1% 1% 14% 2% 2%

QE7a Suppose you were to buy a car today, be it new or second hand, which factors, apart from the price, would make you lean towards one model over another? Firstly?

TOTAL

En

gin

e

perf

orm

an

ce

Aest

heti

cs

Sp

ace

in

sid

e

Co

mfo

rt

Safe

ty

Du

rab

ilit

y\

ro

bu

stn

ess

Fu

el

con

sum

pti

on

Level

an

d

avail

ab

ilit

y o

f eq

uip

men

t

Rep

uta

tio

n o

f m

ark

\ b

ran

d

En

vir

on

men

tall

y

clean

Nu

mb

er

of

seats

Resa

le v

alu

e

Serv

icin

g c

ost

No

t ap

pli

cab

le

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

Oth

er

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

DK

UE25 EU25 22261 7% 6% 6% 10% 20% 9% 23% 2% 4% 5% 2% 2% 5% 0% 0% 1%BE 1001 4% 6% 5% 15% 24% 7% 20% 2% 3% 5% 3% 0% 5% 0% 0% - CZ 914 6% 6% 4% 6% 20% 15% 23% 2% 4% 3% 1% 2% 8% 0% 0% 1%DK 991 5% 8% 6% 8% 20% 8% 23% 2% 2% 9% 2% 2% 6% 0% 1% 0%D-W 979 5% 6% 6% 6% 18% 10% 28% 2% 2% 9% 2% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0%DE 1459 5% 6% 6% 6% 19% 10% 28% 1% 2% 8% 1% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0%D-E 478 6% 5% 7% 5% 22% 8% 28% 1% 1% 7% 1% 2% 6% - 1% 0%EE 721 6% 1% 4% 13% 18% 14% 23% 3% 4% 1% 3% 1% 7% 0% 1% 1%EL 958 12% 6% 3% 5% 21% 13% 13% 1% 8% 3% 2% 1% 10% 0% 0% 0%ES 837 12% 4% 5% 12% 22% 5% 21% 3% 6% 2% 1% 1% 5% - 0% 2%FR 939 3% 5% 5% 15% 21% 8% 20% 1% 4% 9% 3% 1% 6% 0% 0% 1%IE 909 8% 2% 7% 15% 19% 7% 18% 2% 9% 3% 2% 6% 2% 0% 0% 0%IT 967 7% 9% 8% 10% 20% 11% 21% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% - 0% 0%CY 463 8% 6% 6% 9% 20% 8% 24% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 5% - 1% 0%LV 808 7% 9% 2% 14% 17% 8% 24% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 10% - - 0%LT 870 12% 9% 2% 14% 16% 11% 23% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 5% - - 1%LU 493 6% 8% 8% 14% 18% 3% 21% 1% 4% 10% 3% 1% 2% - 1% 0%HU 815 6% 6% 3% 4% 18% 2% 31% 2% 7% 2% 2% 1% 14% 0% 0% 0%MT 457 8% 5% 10% 12% 15% 12% 23% 1% 5% 4% 1% 1% 3% - 0% 1%NL 951 6% 10% 11% 10% 20% 10% 15% 1% 3% 7% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0%AT 889 7% 4% 5% 12% 16% 12% 24% 3% 5% 3% 1% 2% 4% 0% 1% 0%PL 834 4% 7% 2% 10% 21% 13% 28% 1% 5% 2% 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1%PT 875 8% 6% 4% 11% 21% 10% 23% 2% 3% 4% 2% 1% 5% - - 1%SI 963 5% 7% 2% 9% 22% 5% 25% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 9% - 1% 4%SK 1064 10% 6% 4% 7% 23% 2% 30% 2% 6% 3% 1% 0% 5% - 1% 1%FI 973 6% 4% 6% 9% 19% 12% 23% 3% 3% 5% 2% 3% 4% 0% 0% 1%SE 974 3% 5% 7% 11% 20% 9% 24% 1% 3% 9% 2% 1% 4% - 0% 0%UK 1101 9% 3% 8% 12% 18% 5% 19% 1% 5% 7% 4% 2% 4% 1% 1% 1%

QE7b And secondly?

TOTAL

En

gin

e

perf

orm

an

ce

Aest

heti

cs

Sp

ace

in

sid

e

Co

mfo

rt

Safe

ty

Du

rab

ilit

y\

ro

bu

stn

ess

Fu

el

con

sum

pti

on

Level

an

d

avail

ab

ilit

y o

f eq

uip

men

t

Rep

uta

tio

n o

f m

ark

\ b

ran

d

En

vir

on

men

tall

y

clean

Nu

mb

er

of

seats

Resa

le v

alu

e

Serv

icin

g c

ost

No

t ap

pli

cab

le

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

Oth

er

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

DK

UE25 EU25 22086 7% 6% 5% 10% 14% 9% 17% 2% 5% 7% 3% 3% 9% 0% 0% 1%BE 998 3% 9% 6% 12% 12% 7% 18% 2% 6% 9% 5% 2% 8% 0% 1% 0%CZ 907 5% 5% 5% 8% 12% 17% 17% 4% 6% 5% 2% 3% 10% - 0% 1%DK 988 3% 8% 6% 8% 13% 8% 19% 4% 4% 12% 3% 5% 8% 0% 0% 0%D-W 977 5% 7% 7% 6% 13% 10% 16% 2% 2% 11% 2% 5% 12% 0% 1% 1%DE 1456 5% 7% 7% 6% 13% 10% 17% 2% 1% 11% 2% 5% 12% 0% 1% 1%D-E 478 5% 7% 6% 7% 15% 10% 19% 2% 1% 11% 1% 4% 11% - 0% 1%EE 712 4% 2% 3% 11% 12% 11% 19% 3% 8% 5% 4% 3% 14% - 0% 1%EL 952 10% 6% 4% 5% 11% 11% 13% 2% 10% 6% 2% 3% 15% - 0% 1%ES 824 12% 6% 4% 14% 12% 7% 17% 3% 5% 3% 1% 2% 11% - 1% 2%FR 929 5% 5% 4% 11% 13% 9% 17% 2% 5% 11% 4% 1% 11% - - 3%IE 903 7% 1% 6% 14% 11% 7% 18% 5% 9% 3% 2% 9% 5% 0% 0% 2%IT 962 7% 8% 5% 11% 15% 11% 19% 2% 5% 4% 2% 2% 6% 0% 0% 0%CY 462 7% 5% 5% 7% 11% 6% 19% 5% 5% 5% 6% 4% 14% 0% - 1%LV 804 7% 8% 1% 10% 14% 9% 19% 4% 5% 3% 4% 1% 14% - - 1%LT 862 11% 11% 2% 11% 14% 10% 19% 3% 4% 3% 1% 1% 8% - - 2%LU 492 8% 7% 7% 8% 12% 5% 17% 3% 4% 9% 5% 2% 9% 0% 2% 1%HU 810 7% 6% 2% 5% 16% 3% 19% 4% 7% 6% 5% 1% 19% - - 0%MT 450 9% 3% 9% 10% 16% 6% 18% 2% 8% 5% 2% 3% 6% 0% - 3%NL 945 5% 8% 11% 11% 14% 11% 14% 1% 5% 9% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1%AT 886 7% 3% 5% 9% 13% 11% 16% 4% 7% 6% 2% 5% 9% 0% 1% 1%PL 825 3% 6% 4% 13% 14% 12% 18% 3% 6% 6% 2% 3% 9% 0% 0% 1%PT 871 7% 5% 6% 12% 14% 7% 19% 2% 5% 5% 4% 1% 11% 0% 0% 1%SI 928 3% 5% 2% 7% 11% 6% 18% 6% 3% 7% 2% 3% 19% 0% 1% 7%SK 1059 9% 9% 5% 10% 13% 1% 19% 3% 7% 6% 2% 2% 13% - 0% 0%FI 967 6% 3% 6% 8% 10% 14% 16% 5% 5% 7% 2% 6% 10% 0% 1% 1%SE 973 5% 8% 6% 11% 13% 9% 19% 2% 4% 10% 1% 4% 7% - 0% 1%UK 1085 8% 3% 6% 12% 17% 5% 17% 2% 8% 7% 3% 3% 6% 1% 0% 1%

QE7c And thirdly?

TOTAL

En

gin

e p

erf

orm

an

ce

Aest

heti

cs

Sp

ace

in

sid

e

Co

mfo

rt

Safe

ty

Du

rab

ilit

y\

ro

bu

stn

ess

Fu

el

con

sum

pti

on

Level

an

d

avail

ab

ilit

y o

f eq

uip

men

t

Rep

uta

tio

n o

f m

ark

\ b

ran

d

En

vir

on

men

tall

y

clean

Nu

mb

er

of

seats

Resa

le v

alu

e

Serv

icin

g c

ost

No

t ap

pli

cab

le

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

Oth

er

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 22% 19% 15% 25% 54% 21% 53% 4% 12% 14% 5% 5% 15% 7% 2% 4%BE 1032 13% 26% 20% 40% 59% 18% 51% 4% 13% 16% 10% 3% 15% 3% 3% 0%CZ 1011 19% 20% 12% 19% 49% 41% 52% 6% 13% 7% 3% 7% 20% 6% 1% 4%DK 1045 14% 23% 19% 21% 59% 22% 56% 7% 8% 27% 6% 8% 14% 4% 1% 1%D-W 1053 16% 21% 19% 14% 53% 25% 67% 4% 4% 22% 4% 7% 18% 5% 2% 2%DE 1570 16% 21% 19% 14% 55% 25% 68% 4% 4% 21% 4% 7% 17% 5% 2% 2%D-E 517 17% 20% 18% 14% 63% 22% 68% 5% 3% 20% 2% 6% 17% 5% 2% 3%EE 1004 14% 3% 8% 25% 33% 28% 52% 5% 12% 5% 6% 3% 17% 21% 1% 7%EL 1000 38% 19% 8% 13% 76% 30% 29% 4% 23% 10% 4% 5% 27% 3% 1% 1%ES 1012 36% 14% 10% 28% 56% 12% 40% 6% 15% 6% 1% 3% 16% 5% 2% 12%FR 1009 14% 18% 13% 35% 52% 21% 52% 2% 11% 24% 9% 3% 19% 4% 1% 3%IE 1000 28% 5% 17% 37% 53% 17% 46% 8% 25% 6% 6% 16% 6% 3% 2% 6%IT 1019 29% 32% 19% 28% 54% 27% 55% 5% 9% 7% 3% 3% 11% 2% 2% 4%CY 504 31% 16% 12% 20% 72% 14% 48% 9% 12% 8% 7% 6% 19% 7% 1% 1%LV 1019 22% 20% 3% 26% 40% 18% 57% 6% 11% 4% 6% 1% 21% 15% - 6%LT 1004 38% 27% 5% 29% 37% 27% 58% 6% 7% 5% 2% 2% 13% 2% 0% 11%LU 506 21% 25% 27% 29% 59% 11% 52% 4% 10% 22% 10% 3% 14% 2% 4% 1%HU 1015 17% 15% 8% 9% 49% 5% 56% 5% 16% 7% 7% 5% 38% 13% 1% 7%MT 500 28% 9% 22% 28% 39% 21% 71% 5% 17% 11% 2% 6% 10% 5% 0% 4%NL 1019 15% 33% 34% 30% 52% 24% 38% 2% 12% 18% 9% 5% 3% 6% 3% 1%AT 1000 26% 11% 15% 26% 47% 27% 55% 6% 16% 9% 4% 7% 14% 4% 2% 7%PL 1000 12% 14% 7% 28% 55% 28% 60% 3% 13% 7% 3% 4% 11% 14% 1% 3%PT 1011 25% 13% 12% 27% 58% 19% 53% 4% 10% 9% 6% 3% 18% 9% 1% 5%SI 1027 18% 20% 7% 23% 66% 11% 57% 10% 7% 11% 3% 4% 30% 4% 3% 2%SK 1143 31% 22% 10% 20% 68% 4% 69% 4% 17% 9% 3% 3% 18% 2% 2% 5%FI 1031 18% 9% 18% 21% 60% 35% 53% 8% 10% 15% 7% 10% 14% 5% 2% 1%SE 1002 13% 18% 18% 28% 66% 24% 61% 2% 10% 25% 4% 6% 12% 2% 1% 1%UK 1313 26% 8% 18% 26% 46% 13% 46% 4% 19% 16% 9% 6% 9% 15% 2% 2%

QE7a+b+c Factors would influence you when buying a car (new or secondhand)? - TOTAL

TOTAL

It is not a useful system and you would not like to have it on your next

car

It is not a useful system but you would like to


It is a useful system but you would not like to


It is a useful system and you would like to have it

on your next car


DK

UE25 EU25 24796 2% 2% 7% 73% 9% 6%BE 1032 2% 2% 7% 83% 4% 1%CZ 1011 2% 2% 16% 63% 7% 10%DK 1045 2% 1% 4% 84% 7% 2%D-W 1053 3% 2% 9% 77% 4% 5%DE 1570 2% 2% 8% 78% 5% 5%D-E 517 2% 2% 5% 80% 6% 5%EE 1004 3% 0% 6% 60% 18% 12%EL 1000 2% 2% 4% 85% 5% 2%ES 1012 2% 1% 7% 65% 13% 13%FR 1009 4% 4% 6% 76% 5% 5%IE 1000 2% 1% 3% 72% 6% 15%IT 1019 4% 6% 13% 66% 4% 8%CY 504 1% 1% 5% 79% 8% 7%LV 1019 2% 1% 4% 60% 22% 10%LT 1004 2% 2% 7% 66% 4% 19%LU 506 1% 2% 4% 85% 4% 4%HU 1015 4% 2% 10% 58% 17% 7%MT 500 4% 3% 4% 70% 9% 10%NL 1019 3% 2% 7% 79% 5% 3%AT 1000 2% 2% 12% 66% 5% 12%PL 1000 1% 1% 4% 68% 18% 8%PT 1011 1% 1% 4% 68% 18% 8%SI 1027 1% 1% 6% 78% 9% 6%SK 1143 1% 3% 14% 68% 5% 9%FI 1031 2% 2% 9% 78% 6% 3%SE 1002 0% 1% 3% 88% 4% 5%UK 1313 2% 1% 4% 74% 17% 2%


QE8.1 I will read out a list of car safety systems, some of which already exist and others which are currently under development. For each of these systems, please tell me which of the following statements best corresponds to your opinion.

TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK

UE25 EU25 21005 3% 3% 9% 86% - - BE 983 3% 3% 8% 87% - - CZ 839 3% 2% 19% 76% - - DK 945 2% 1% 5% 92% - - D-W 952 3% 2% 10% 86% - - DE 1415 3% 2% 9% 86% - - D-E 461 2% 2% 6% 90% - - EE 697 4% 1% 8% 87% - - EL 927 2% 2% 4% 92% - - ES 745 2% 1% 9% 88% - - FR 912 4% 5% 7% 85% - - IE 789 3% 2% 4% 91% - - IT 903 4% 6% 15% 74% - - CY 431 1% 1% 6% 92% - - LV 689 3% 1% 6% 89% - - LT 772 3% 2% 9% 86% - - LU 465 1% 2% 4% 92% - - HU 765 6% 3% 14% 78% - - MT 407 5% 4% 5% 86% - - NL 933 4% 2% 8% 86% - - AT 828 3% 3% 15% 80% - - PL 742 2% 2% 5% 92% - - PT 741 1% 2% 5% 93% - - SI 873 1% 1% 7% 91% - - SK 980 2% 3% 16% 79% - - FI 939 2% 2% 10% 85% - - SE 918 0% 1% 3% 96% - - UK 1071 2% 2% 5% 91% - -


Adjusted base : respondents having answered


TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK




TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK


Obstacle and collision warning: system detecting potential collisions with other vehicles or obstacles based on current speed


TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK


Lane departure warning system: system warning the driver when unintentionally leaving the lane


TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK




TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK


Real time traffic and travel information: system providing real time information about the road network such as traffic jams and weather conditions allowing to choose an alternative itinerary


TOTAL


car






on your next car


DK




TOTALUndermines

driver’s freedom



artificial feeling of being

protected

Fear of excessive visual

and sound warnings


It’s difficult to understand how

these safety systems work


It's too expensive to

service


Other (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 7% 13% 9% 11% 5% 34% 4% 2% 1% 13%BE 1032 8% 16% 13% 11% 3% 40% 2% 4% 1% 3%CZ 1011 3% 8% 4% 5% 6% 57% 3% 4% 1% 10%DK 1045 8% 23% 10% 18% 3% 23% 4% 2% 2% 7%D-W 1053 6% 17% 9% 9% 6% 35% 3% 3% 1% 11%DE 1570 5% 17% 10% 9% 5% 36% 3% 3% 1% 11%D-E 517 4% 16% 10% 9% 4% 43% 3% 2% 1% 8%EE 1004 6% 14% 5% 10% 4% 23% 4% 3% 1% 30%EL 1000 5% 8% 4% 7% 6% 57% 5% 3% 3% 3%ES 1012 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 28% 8% 2% 1% 32%FR 1009 9% 16% 9% 20% 4% 29% 3% 3% 1% 7%IE 1000 15% 9% 7% 14% 8% 27% 3% 2% 1% 14%IT 1019 6% 9% 14% 12% 6% 37% 8% 1% 1% 7%CY 504 8% 10% 8% 7% 4% 44% 6% 1% 1% 12%LV 1019 8% 16% 4% 8% 5% 27% 5% 1% - 25%LT 1004 8% 10% 7% 10% 4% 33% 7% 2% 1% 17%LU 506 9% 16% 9% 12% 6% 27% 3% 6% 1% 11%HU 1015 4% 9% 5% 7% 4% 39% 7% 2% 2% 20%MT 500 8% 7% 10% 11% 5% 30% 8% 2% 1% 18%NL 1019 9% 25% 10% 8% 3% 32% 2% 3% 2% 6%AT 1000 7% 11% 11% 12% 8% 33% 2% 3% 1% 9%PL 1000 7% 9% 9% 8% 5% 35% 5% 1% 1% 21%PT 1011 4% 5% 9% 7% 8% 43% 5% 2% - 17%SI 1027 5% 12% 6% 10% 6% 40% 6% 2% 5% 7%SK 1143 11% 14% 8% 9% 7% 35% 4% 3% 0% 9%FI 1031 6% 30% 11% 13% 5% 20% 4% 2% 4% 6%SE 1002 6% 28% 9% 10% 4% 32% 2% 2% 1% 6%UK 1313 8% 17% 8% 11% 3% 32% 3% 1% 3% 14%

QE9a Which of the following factors would most put you off having these kind of safety systems in your car? Firstly?

TOTALUndermines

driver’s freedom




protected


and sound warnings






service


Other (SPONTANEOUS) DK

UE25 EU25 21620 4% 12% 11% 16% 8% 19% 21% 3% 1% 5%BE 1003 7% 12% 16% 15% 7% 21% 14% 4% 1% 3%CZ 907 3% 10% 5% 12% 9% 15% 31% 3% 0% 11%DK 970 5% 17% 12% 18% 6% 18% 16% 2% 2% 3%D-W 935 3% 14% 14% 19% 8% 18% 16% 2% 1% 5%DE 1405 3% 14% 14% 18% 8% 19% 17% 2% 1% 5%D-E 476 2% 14% 14% 14% 7% 22% 20% 2% 2% 5%EE 701 7% 14% 7% 17% 10% 16% 20% 4% 0% 6%EL 973 3% 7% 5% 9% 9% 19% 38% 4% 2% 4%ES 688 5% 5% 7% 10% 9% 19% 30% 3% 1% 10%FR 942 4% 11% 10% 19% 9% 22% 15% 3% 0% 7%IE 864 8% 12% 9% 17% 13% 18% 15% 3% 1% 4%IT 950 5% 9% 13% 14% 11% 18% 23% 3% 1% 3%CY 445 3% 6% 11% 13% 7% 16% 40% 1% 0% 1%LV 764 4% 12% 7% 16% 9% 20% 23% 1% - 7%LT 833 6% 11% 9% 12% 11% 17% 24% 2% 0% 7%LU 453 5% 11% 11% 17% 8% 18% 16% 4% 1% 10%HU 809 5% 11% 8% 11% 10% 19% 28% 3% 1% 5%MT 411 6% 10% 10% 12% 10% 18% 25% 3% - 6%NL 962 9% 19% 15% 15% 5% 15% 12% 3% 2% 4%AT 905 6% 17% 12% 15% 9% 18% 16% 2% 1% 4%PL 786 4% 10% 13% 14% 7% 20% 25% 1% 1% 4%PT 836 1% 6% 9% 10% 10% 20% 35% 2% - 7%SI 959 3% 6% 4% 11% 6% 18% 28% 3% 1% 19%SK 1036 5% 11% 10% 16% 11% 24% 16% 5% 0% 2%FI 964 7% 14% 14% 22% 7% 14% 14% 4% 3% 3%SE 941 4% 17% 12% 21% 7% 15% 18% 2% 1% 3%UK 1133 5% 15% 10% 17% 6% 18% 18% 2% 3% 5%

QE9b And secondly?

TOTALUndermines

driver’s freedom




protected


and sound warnings






service


Other (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 11% 23% 19% 24% 12% 51% 22% 4% 2% 13%BE 1032 15% 27% 29% 26% 10% 61% 15% 8% 1% 3%CZ 1011 6% 17% 8% 16% 14% 70% 30% 7% 2% 10%DK 1045 13% 39% 21% 35% 8% 39% 20% 4% 3% 7%D-W 1053 8% 29% 22% 26% 13% 51% 17% 5% 1% 11%DE 1570 8% 29% 22% 25% 13% 53% 18% 5% 2% 11%D-E 517 6% 28% 23% 22% 10% 63% 21% 4% 2% 8%EE 1004 11% 23% 10% 22% 11% 34% 18% 6% 1% 30%EL 1000 9% 15% 8% 16% 15% 75% 42% 6% 3% 3%ES 1012 9% 9% 11% 13% 12% 41% 28% 4% 2% 32%FR 1009 13% 26% 18% 38% 13% 49% 16% 6% 1% 7%IE 1000 22% 20% 15% 29% 20% 43% 16% 4% 1% 14%IT 1019 11% 17% 27% 25% 16% 54% 29% 4% 1% 7%CY 504 11% 15% 18% 18% 10% 58% 41% 2% 1% 12%LV 1019 12% 25% 10% 20% 12% 42% 22% 2% - 25%LT 1004 14% 20% 15% 20% 14% 46% 27% 4% 2% 17%LU 506 13% 26% 19% 27% 13% 43% 17% 9% 1% 11%HU 1015 8% 18% 11% 16% 12% 54% 30% 4% 2% 20%MT 500 13% 15% 18% 21% 13% 45% 29% 5% 1% 18%NL 1019 17% 43% 24% 22% 8% 46% 14% 6% 3% 6%AT 1000 13% 27% 22% 26% 17% 49% 17% 5% 2% 9%PL 1000 10% 17% 19% 19% 11% 50% 25% 2% 1% 21%PT 1011 5% 10% 16% 15% 16% 60% 35% 4% - 17%SI 1027 8% 17% 10% 21% 12% 58% 32% 5% 6% 7%SK 1143 15% 25% 17% 24% 17% 57% 18% 7% 0% 9%FI 1031 12% 43% 23% 33% 11% 33% 17% 5% 4% 6%SE 1002 9% 45% 20% 29% 10% 47% 19% 4% 1% 6%UK 1313 13% 29% 17% 26% 9% 47% 19% 3% 4% 14%

QE9a+b Which reason would put you off having these safety systems in your car? - TOTAL

TOTAL

Pu

bli

c au

tho

riti

es

Car

man

ufa

ctu

rers

Au

tom

ob

ile c

lub

s

Co

nsu

mer

ass

oci

ati

on

s

Th

e m

ed

ia i

n g

en

era

l

Th

e s

peci

ali

sed

med

ia

(sp

eci

ali

sed

pre

ss,

speci

ali

sed

TV

pro

gra

mm

es,

an

d s

peci

ali

sed

ra

dio

pro

gra

mm

es)

Car

deale

rs

Dri

vin

g s

cho

ols

Insu

ran

ce c

om

pan

ies

Fam

ily a

nd

fri

en

ds

Wo

uld

never

loo

k f

or

such

in

form

ati

on

, n

ot

inte

rest

ed

(S

PO

NTA

NEO

US

)

Oth

er

(SP

ON

TA

NEO

US

)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 7% 29% 30% 26% 9% 25% 22% 6% 9% 18% 8% 1% 6%BE 1032 7% 30% 27% 31% 10% 22% 39% 10% 16% 19% 4% 2% 1%CZ 1011 1% 41% 20% 15% 8% 30% 34% 4% 4% 15% 7% 1% 4%DK 1045 22% 17% 64% 33% 7% 25% 12% 5% 15% 19% 4% 1% 4%D-W 1053 4% 28% 54% 33% 8% 33% 16% 7% 4% 15% 5% 1% 4%DE 1570 4% 28% 54% 33% 7% 33% 17% 7% 4% 15% 5% 1% 4%D-E 517 4% 29% 57% 33% 4% 35% 19% 6% 6% 14% 4% 1% 3%EE 1004 15% 22% 10% 13% 19% 16% 9% 11% 17% 11% 8% 1% 24%EL 1000 10% 59% 12% 14% 13% 31% 24% 8% 8% 23% 7% 1% 1%ES 1012 5% 18% 9% 14% 12% 13% 29% 4% 5% 21% 11% 1% 15%FR 1009 12% 33% 23% 47% 5% 24% 32% 7% 18% 19% 5% 1% 4%IE 1000 16% 42% 32% 25% 16% 23% 22% 7% 17% 21% 3% 1% 9%IT 1019 6% 29% 11% 17% 13% 23% 34% 4% 5% 16% 5% 2% 6%CY 504 15% 52% 18% 27% 8% 26% 18% 6% 16% 24% 12% 2% 1%LV 1019 4% 35% 15% 7% 8% 18% 15% 6% 9% 22% 14% 2% 12%LT 1004 1% 45% 19% 13% 9% 23% 10% 8% 9% 19% 3% 1% 14%LU 506 9% 23% 61% 18% 7% 26% 30% 8% 14% 13% 2% 3% 2%HU 1015 8% 26% 15% 14% 6% 17% 22% 3% 7% 19% 18% 1% 10%MT 500 15% 42% 8% 15% 14% 13% 22% 9% 10% 29% 7% 1% 7%NL 1019 11% 14% 59% 55% 6% 28% 9% 3% 11% 17% 3% 1% 4%AT 1000 9% 25% 61% 26% 12% 21% 21% 5% 5% 16% 5% 0% 8%PL 1000 2% 30% 17% 9% 8% 26% 15% 5% 7% 22% 11% 0% 10%PT 1011 9% 32% 31% 17% 14% 13% 27% 10% 8% 15% 14% 1% 10%SI 1027 2% 34% 30% 12% 7% 28% 24% 4% 3% 29% 9% 2% 2%SK 1143 2% 57% 26% 23% 10% 35% 28% 5% 8% 24% 5% 0% 4%FI 1031 28% 39% 24% 20% 8% 38% 17% 8% 16% 14% 4% 2% 4%SE 1002 18% 25% 49% 47% 7% 35% 9% 6% 36% 17% 2% 0% 2%UK 1313 7% 28% 39% 22% 5% 21% 10% 8% 12% 20% 14% 1% 4%


TOTALInform through large scale communication

campaigns

Offer tax incentives for cars equipped

with these systems

Impose car safety regulations making

such systems mandatory by law

Promote technological research and

development in this field


Other (SPONTANEOUS)

DK

UE25 EU25 24796 16% 37% 15% 15% 5% 1% 11%BE 1032 17% 49% 14% 13% 4% 1% 2%CZ 1011 23% 34% 12% 19% 4% 0% 9%DK 1045 9% 42% 21% 18% 3% 0% 8%D-W 1053 12% 41% 15% 13% 7% 1% 11%DE 1570 12% 42% 16% 14% 6% 1% 10%D-E 517 9% 45% 18% 15% 4% 1% 7%EE 1004 11% 31% 10% 15% 5% 1% 29%EL 1000 19% 44% 17% 11% 4% 1% 4%ES 1012 32% 17% 12% 12% 3% 1% 23%FR 1009 18% 38% 18% 17% 2% 1% 6%IE 1000 18% 34% 19% 10% 3% - 16%IT 1019 16% 44% 16% 12% 4% 1% 8%CY 504 27% 30% 16% 12% 1% 0% 14%LV 1019 18% 30% 9% 16% 6% - 20%LT 1004 10% 33% 8% 21% 4% 0% 24%LU 506 14% 43% 15% 16% 6% - 6%HU 1015 14% 31% 12% 17% 9% 0% 17%MT 500 38% 22% 12% 9% 1% - 19%NL 1019 9% 46% 17% 18% 3% 0% 6%AT 1000 16% 38% 14% 12% 5% 1% 14%PL 1000 15% 35% 10% 18% 4% 0% 17%PT 1011 30% 29% 16% 5% 3% 0% 17%SI 1027 7% 49% 12% 14% 8% 3% 7%SK 1143 16% 37% 14% 22% 4% 1% 7%FI 1031 11% 58% 11% 13% 1% 1% 5%SE 1002 8% 42% 11% 31% 1% 1% 5%UK 1313 11% 35% 15% 18% 11% 0% 10%

QE11 If the public authorities would like to encourage the development of these car safety systems, in your opinion, which of the following would be the most preferable action?

TOTALA real risk of intrusion that

would deter you from having such a system

A minor inconvenience compared with the usefulness

of the system

You do not consider it as an inconvenience as far as you

are concerned


DK

UE25 EU25 12821 10% 28% 45% 6% 11%BE 559 7% 32% 56% 3% 3%CZ 504 8% 36% 39% 7% 10%DK 530 5% 21% 61% 4% 9%D-W 548 18% 31% 34% 7% 9%DE 809 16% 31% 37% 7% 9%D-E 257 9% 28% 49% 4% 9%EE 511 5% 20% 41% 5% 29%EL 494 12% 28% 53% 4% 3%ES 566 5% 15% 52% 8% 20%FR 494 10% 30% 50% 2% 8%IE 496 8% 30% 37% 7% 18%IT 529 7% 32% 45% 9% 6%CY 255 7% 28% 51% 3% 11%LV 523 8% 22% 38% 9% 24%LT 502 10% 28% 38% 5% 20%LU 260 9% 24% 52% 3% 12%HU 516 10% 19% 46% 10% 15%MT 249 13% 20% 43% 4% 20%NL 498 9% 30% 52% 2% 6%AT 498 11% 24% 46% 5% 13%PL 529 9% 26% 39% 6% 19%PT 539 7% 22% 55% 4% 12%SI 491 9% 30% 46% 10% 6%SK 574 5% 32% 49% 4% 10%FI 517 10% 39% 44% 3% 4%SE 512 7% 28% 58% 2% 5%UK 688 11% 32% 40% 9% 9%

(IF 'SPLIT BALLOT A')

QE12a Cars can be equipped with an emergency call system which automatically calls the local emergency authorities when the vehicle is involved in a serious accident. This system instantly transfers to them accurate vehicle position and other accident related data and thereby reduces the time for the rescue services to arrive. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?

TOTALA real risk of intrusion that

would deter you from having such a system

A minor inconvenience compared with the usefulness

of the system

You do not consider it as an inconvenience as far as your

are concerned


DK

UE25 EU25 11975 18% 29% 35% 7% 12%BE 473 15% 33% 46% 4% 1%CZ 507 19% 32% 30% 8% 11%DK 515 18% 28% 43% 3% 8%D-W 505 27% 29% 25% 8% 12%DE 761 25% 29% 27% 7% 11%D-E 260 21% 29% 36% 6% 8%EE 493 14% 22% 33% 4% 27%EL 506 16% 25% 50% 6% 2%ES 446 9% 16% 44% 10% 21%FR 515 26% 32% 33% 2% 7%IE 504 16% 31% 27% 4% 21%IT 490 10% 31% 39% 8% 12%CY 249 9% 22% 54% 5% 11%LV 496 13% 22% 33% 10% 22%LT 502 13% 25% 32% 6% 24%LU 246 19% 31% 36% 3% 11%HU 499 8% 23% 40% 13% 16%MT 251 12% 15% 40% 3% 30%NL 521 21% 33% 38% 4% 5%AT 502 13% 18% 43% 8% 18%PL 471 12% 24% 36% 7% 22%PT 472 9% 26% 46% 6% 13%SI 536 12% 31% 40% 12% 6%SK 569 15% 31% 42% 5% 7%FI 514 23% 39% 31% 3% 5%SE 490 23% 27% 42% 2% 6%UK 625 21% 35% 27% 9% 8%

(IF 'SPLIT BALLOT B')

QE12b Cars can be equipped with an in-built system collecting information such as their location or speed, in order to produce real time traffic information. Some people might consider this system as an intrusion on driver’s privacy. Do you personally regard this as…?

use of intelligent systems in vehicles · transport efficiency through intelligent vehicle safety...

Documents