“It’s just another car driving” − Perceptions of U.S. residents interacting with driverless automated vehicles on public roads

• Performed 52 semi-structured interviews with residents in the U.S. having regular interactions with AVs. • Study identified how and why road users respond to AVs in traffic • The most reported road user behavior was being more cautious around AVs. • eHMIs could promote perceived safety and trust in AVs, but they may also be unnecessary given the conservative driving style and apparently safe behavior of AVs. Driverless, SAE Level 4 automated vehicles (AVs)—vehicles operating without on-board human operators—have become operational in some cities in the U.S. The driving style and behaviors of AVs can induce changes in the behavior of road users interacting with AVs in traffic. Prior research has not collected data from road users residing in areas in which AVs are deployed and who have solid experience with AVs by regular interactions with them. As a result, a comprehensive and rich analysis of road users’ responses to AVs in traffic based on solid experience and the underlying reasons is missing. The two main research questions of this study are: 1) How do road users respond to AVs in traffic? and 2) Which factors affect road users’ responses to AVs in traffic? Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals residing in U.S. cities in which driverless AVs are deployed to explore how and why road users respond to driverless AVs in traffic. Content analysis was applied to manually identify themes in the data, complemented by using large language models. We also computed Spearman rank-order correlations to determine significant associations between the sub-themes. The most common road user behaviors were being more cautious around AVs, letting the AV pass and waving and gawking at them. Road users took advantage of the capabilities of AVs, cutting them off, slowing them down, or recklessly crossing the road in front. The AV safety operators typically monitored the operation of the AV, contributing to the perception that AVs are safe and predictable. Other participants reported incidences of inattentive drivers / human operators of Tesla’s SAE Level 2 partially automated driving system, being observed sleeping in the AV and rear-ending one of our participants. The most common external communication cue between road users and human drivers was eye contact, in some cases also when there was no operator present. Media reports / personal stories involving fatal accidents with AVs, particularly those linked to Tesla’s partially automated driving system, were linked to concerns about AV safety. Our study reveals significant associations between the behavior of AVs (e.g., AV being stuck) and road users’ changes in behavior, cognition (e.g., trust, distrust) and affect (e.g., perceived safety, frustration or anger). More trials with AVs on public roads can promote the interest and curiosity of road users, and their acceptance and use of AVs. The need for eHMIs and their effectiveness in promoting safer, more efficient, and comfortable interactions needs to be further investigated.