We’ll Try Driverless Taxis Before We Trust Them: The Autonomous Acceptance Gap explains why
A few weeks ago, I found myself sitting in the back of a fully driverless Waymo in Los Angeles. There was a friendly welcome from a calm automated voice, a smooth pull-away from the curb, and then the slightly surreal moment when my brain caught up with what my eyes were seeing… the steering wheel was moving, but no one was driving.
I won’t pretend it felt normal straight away. I trusted the technology intellectually; emotionally, that took longer. And with the announcement last week that driverless taxis will roll out in London later this year, it’s that exact tension that our latest research here in the UK brings into sharp focus.
Willing, but not yet comfortable
As driverless taxi trials edge closer to commercial rollout in the UK, our latest research reveals a clear gap between what people say they’re willing to do and how comfortable they actually feel about autonomous transport.
Interest in fully driverless taxis does exist, particularly in cities. But that surface-level openness is paired with significantly lower levels of comfort around safety and the absence of a human presence. And having now experienced a driverless ride myself, that hesitation feels familiar.
Adoption potential exists, but with clear limits
40% of UK adults say they would consider using a fully driverless taxi in a city or large urban area. That drops to 35% in smaller towns or rural settings.
Enthusiasm thins quickly when we look beyond top-line interest. Just 18% of urban respondents say they would be very likely to use a driverless taxi, falling to 13% outside cities.
There is a clear urban–rural divide, not just in access, but in emotional readiness.
Naming the gap: the Autonomous Acceptance Gap
Across the UK public, stated likelihood to use a driverless taxi consistently outpaces emotional comfort with autonomy and reduced human contact.
In other words, many people are prepared to try autonomous taxis before they actually trust them.
That imbalance is exactly what The Harris Poll UK’s Autonomous Acceptance Gap (AAG) captures. It explains why early adoption may happen before trust is fully formed, and why first experiences will matter disproportionately.
Safety is the emotional fault line
When we asked people to compare driverless taxis with traditional, human-driven ones:
49% believe driverless taxis would be less safe
Only 28% think they would be at least slightly safer
Concerns run deep:
70% worry about the safety of the technology overall
44% specifically cite fears around cybersecurity and hacking
And concerns don’t stop at the journey itself. In the event of an incident:
69% want clarity around access to human assistance
59% are concerned about liability and responsibility
When I was in that Waymo in LA, I remember noticing how much reassurance came from knowing there was probably still a remote support system behind the scenes. Even when humans aren’t visible, people want to know they’re there.
The human presence still matters
Despite increasing exposure to automation, human drivers remain a powerful psychological safety signal: 81% of respondents say having a human driver is important when using a taxi service.
That sense of reassurance is especially strong among: older consumers, women, and people considering use in non-urban areas. Removing the driver doesn’t just remove a role, it removes a source of comfort.
Benefits are emerging, quietly
This isn’t a story of outright rejection. Consumers do recognise potential upsides:
37% welcome fewer awkward or unwanted interactions
32% associate autonomy with fewer human errors and more consistent driving
50% expect lower fares, linked to greater availability
22% see increased mobility for people who are unable to drive themselves
These benefits are real, but they are not yet emotionally compelling enough to override safety concerns.
Understanding the Autonomous Acceptance Gap (AAG)
The Harris Poll UK’s AAG measures the difference between what people say they would do and how comfortable they feel.
It’s a derived KPI built from: Likelihood to use a fully driverless taxi in urban settings and attitudes toward autonomy and reduced human contact.
We identify three segments:
Pragmatic Adopters (31%): willing to try before they’re fully comfortable
Aligned Attitudes (42%): intent and comfort are closely matched
Autonomy Sceptics (28%): discomfort outweighs willingness
That first group, the Pragmatic Adopters, is where early trials will succeed, but their adoption will be experience-led.
Why emotional trust is the real battleground
At first glance, it’s tempting to assume driverless taxis will live or die based on technological readiness. But our research, and my own experience, suggests otherwise.
People can be open to innovation without being emotionally ready to rely on it. That split has serious implications for how autonomous services are introduced, experienced, and communicated.
Technology adoption won’t be automatic. It will be earned.
For brands and operators, efficiency messaging alone won’t be enough. Safety has to be felt, not just proven, and first experiences will matter far more than early headlines.
For cities and policymakers, successful rollouts will depend on transparency, visible safeguards, and gradual exposure. Public education must go beyond awareness and focus on reassurance.
Ultimately, closing the trust gap means:
Designing experiences that feel as safe as they actually are
Communicating in human terms, not engineering ones
Recognising that emotional readiness matters as much as functional readiness
If you’re exploring how people respond emotionally to emerging technologies, or thinking about how trust is built, tested, and earned, we’d welcome a conversation.
At The Harris Poll UK, we help organisations understand how emotional readiness shapes adoption, acceptance and long-term trust when new technologies move into real-world use.