The German project PPR2049 examined how automated transport could affect people with disabilities, focusing on both the technical potential of emerging vehicle technologies and the practical implications for users. The study was carried out by a consortium that included TRL Ltd., the research group at Crowthorne House, and partners from the automotive and transport sectors such as Nissan and First Bus. The project team also drew on expertise from the RiDC advisory group and received independent review from Professor Matthew Campbell‑Hill. While the report does not specify a particular funding body, it was supported by German research funding and involved collaboration across industry, academia and disability organisations.

The technical analysis concentrated on Level 5 autonomous vehicles, with reference to Levels 3 and 4 as defined by the SAE. Researchers evaluated facial and voice‑recognition systems being developed by Nissan, which aim to reduce the number of controls required to start a vehicle and to monitor passenger stress and wellness levels. These systems are intended to improve safety and ride comfort for all users, but the report notes that no quantitative performance data were reported in the study. In addition, early research into direct brain‑to‑vehicle communication was mentioned, although this remains in a conceptual stage.

Usability trials were conducted on two existing automated services, and focus groups and surveys gathered input from disabled participants. The findings highlighted several benefits: automated private vehicles could increase independence and expand travel options, while shared autonomous transport could combine driverless driving with staff assistance for tasks such as boarding and fare payment. Participants also anticipated that future autonomous systems would be paired with enhanced audio and visual information, for example through dedicated smartphone applications.

However, the study identified a range of challenges that mirror those faced with conventional transport. These include difficulties boarding when ramps are misaligned, conflicts over priority wheelchair spaces, negative attitudes from other passengers, and a lack of accessible information. The report stresses that automation alone does not eliminate existing barriers and may even create new ones if driver‑led tasks that currently support accessibility are removed. For instance, the absence of a driver could mean that assistance with ticket purchase or navigation is no longer available, potentially deepening inequalities. The authors point out that many older public‑service vehicles are exempt from the PSVAR (2000) regulation, which requires a boarding lift or ramp with a slope not exceeding seven degrees for new vehicles introduced after 31 December 2000, further limiting accessibility.

The project also explored the potential for vehicle redesign in a fully automated context. Removing the driver’s cab could allow interior configurations that better accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility aids, provided that the needs of disabled users are considered from the outset. The report recommends that future design guidelines incorporate accessibility as a core requirement, rather than an afterthought, and that standards and regulations be updated to reflect the realities of automated transport.

In summary, PPR2049 demonstrates that while autonomous vehicles hold promise for improving safety and independence for people with disabilities, significant work remains to ensure that accessibility is built into the design and operation of these systems. The collaborative effort between industry, academia and disability advocates provides a foundation for developing inclusive standards and best practices that will guide the next generation of automated transport.