OPEN ACCESS
The environmental and sustainable problems caused by automotive exhaust emission have received more attention than ever. Innovative vehicle technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles (EVs), have been developed a long time ago to cope with the problem. Public acceptance of these EV technologies is critical to their successful replacement of the internal combustion (IC) engine vehicles and thus reduce the emissions. Previous researches had shown that the main barriers were the lack of support infrastructures, high vehicle purchase cost and vehicle reliability with respect to safety. However, studies into the public safety perception of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles have still been limited to date. In this article, a quantitative survey was developed to investigate the public safety concerns of three types of vehicle powertrain: the IC engine, the hybrid electric and the solely EV. The study indicates the root cause of the low safety perception at present. The survey results also indicate that driving freedom is nowadays not just a problem of infrastructure only but is gradually becoming a psychological issue in terms of increased driver’s mental stress, and thus, the overall driving safety is affected. Furthermore, this article states the existence of an evaluation chain to determine the driver’s safety perception. In the end, this article proposed a comprehensive framework of the negation of driver’s safety concerns regarding the hydrogen-fuelled EV, based on the results from the survey and a review of psychological effects. This framework intends to explain the perceived safety perception from a wider angle with some depth.
electric vehicle, hydrogen fuel, psychological factors, safety perception
[1] Gabbatiss, J., Each car in London costs NHS and society £8000 due to air pollution, report finds. Independent, no. June, 2018.
[2] De-Lucena, S.E., A Survey on Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology. Electric Vehicles - The Benefits and Barriers, pp. 1–21, 2011.
[3] Croce, A., Musolino, G., Rindone, C. & Vitetta, A., From green energy to green logistic: A joint analysis of energy, accessibility and mobility. Advanced Model. Analysis A, 55 (3), pp. 121–127, 2018.
[4] Campbell, A.R., Ryley, T. & Thring, R., Identifying the early adopters of alternative fuel vehicles: A case study of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Transportation Research Part A Policy Practice, 46(8), pp. 1318–1327, 2012.
[5] Hardman, S., Chandan, A., Shiu, E. & Steinberger-Wilckens, R., Consumer attitudes to fuel cell vehicles post trial in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 41(15), pp. 6171–6179, 2016.
[6] Thomas, C.E., Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34(15), pp. 6005–6020, 2009.
[7] Shaukat, N. et al., A survey on electric vehicle transportation within smart grid system. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, 81, pp. 1329–1349, 2018.
[8] Martin, E., Shaheen, S.A., Lipman, T.E. & Lidicker, J. R., Behavioral response to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and refueling: Results of California drive clinics. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34(20), pp. 8670–8680, 2009.
[9] Hardman, S., Shiu, E., Steinberger-Wilckens, R., & Turrentine, T., Barriers to the adoption of fuel cell vehicles: A qualitative investigation into early adopters attitudes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 95, pp. 166–182, 2017.
[10] Plötz, P., Schneider, U., Globisch, J., & Dütschke, E., Who will buy electric vehicles?Identifying early adopters in Germany. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, pp. 96–109, 2014.
[11] Bain, A. & van Vorst, W.D., The Hindenburg tragedy revisited the fatal flaw found. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 24(5), pp. 399–403, 1999.
[12] Fry, A., Ryley, T., & Thring, R., The Influence of Knowledge and Persuasion on the Decision to Adopt or Reject Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Sustainability, 10(2997), 2018.
[13] Li, H., Welsh, R., & Morris, A., Exploring pathways to negate safety concerns and improve public acceptance of alternative fuelled electric vehicles. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, vol 182, WIT Press, 2018.
[14] da Silva, F.P., Mental Workload, Task Demand and Driving Performance: What Relation? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 162(Panam), pp. 310–319, 2014.
[15] Benedetto, S., Pedrotti, M., Minin, L., Baccino, T., Re, A., & Montanari, R., Driver workload and eye blink duration. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(3), pp. 199–208, 2011.
[16] Brookhuis, K.A. & de Waard, D., Monitoring drivers’ mental workload in driving simulators using physiological measures. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 42(3), pp. 898–903, 2010.
[17] International Energy Agengy, Global EV Outlook 2018. 2018.
[18] Singh, T., Sharma, S., & Nagesh, S., Soci-economic status scales updated for 2017. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5(7), pp. 3264–3267, 2017.
[19] Siegrist, M. & Cvetkovich, G., Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), pp. 713–719, 2000.
[20] Midden, C.J.H. & Huijts, N.M.A., The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis, 29(5), pp. 743–751, 2009.
[21] Ge, L., Chen, G., Gong, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., & Chambers, J., Outage Analysis of Distributed Buffering Multi-Relay Selection for Cooperative Networks. in International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), 2018, pp. 454–459.
[22] Song, H., Liu, C., & Dahlgren, R.W., Optimal Electricity Supply Bidding by Markov Decision Process. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 15(2), pp. 618–624, 2000.