AV futures or futures with AVs? Bridging sociotechnical imaginaries and a multi-level perspective of autonomous vehicle visualisations in praxis

Academic discussions of AV futures have focused on safety, privacy, accountability, travel behavior and land use, as well as capacity, fuel efficiency, and emissions. Meanwhile, public narratives—largely shaped by incumbent car manufacturers—visually position AVs as substitutive elements within existing automobility, risking a simple continuation of current systems rather than transformative change. The paper contends that AVs are embedded in complex sociotechnical systems and shaped by multiple competing imaginaries; deterministic assumptions should be avoided in favor of acknowledging this plurality. The study’s purpose is to examine AV visualisations as carriers of sociotechnical imaginaries to understand their implications for future transport systems and mobility. It uses an analytical framework combining the system of automobility, the multi-level perspective (MLP) on sociotechnical transitions, and sociotechnical imaginaries to compare depictions from an incumbent regime actor (Daimler) and an external system actor (JAJA Architects). The central research aim is to reveal how visual depictions frame AVs in response to system pressures and how these frames imply either regime stabilization or transformation, with implications for policy and planning.

The paper situates AVs within a century-long system of automobility that delivered flexibility and speed but entrenched car dependence and negative externalities, supported by economic-growth narratives and cemented in urban infrastructures. It draws on the MLP (landscape, regime, niche) to conceptualize pressures (e.g., climate change, urbanization, safety, pollution) and niches (AVs, micromobility, MaaS, car-free strategies) confronting the automobility regime and the power/resistance of incumbents. The literature on sociotechnical imaginaries explains how visions and narratives—often crafted by powerful actors—shape technological trajectories and delimit alternatives, echoing critiques of smart-city marketing as crisis-and-salvation narratives. The paper also reviews AV terminology and SAE levels, highlighting how language frames autonomy, legal responsibility, and capability; it emphasizes the practical limits of Level 5 autonomy and the necessity of constrained operational design domains, noting firm-level strategies (e.g., Waymo’s geographic focus vs. Volvo/Tesla’s world-forging approach). Collectively, this literature motivates analyzing AV visuals as discursive instruments within transition politics.

Design: Qualitative visual discourse analysis (VDA) of AV visualisations from two actors positioned differently within the automobility system. Data: (1) Daimler Global Media archive, searched for “autonomous vehicle” (2015–2019), yielding 445 images tied to press releases. Three images depicting AVs in future urban environments were purposively sampled; others (events, product shots, features, charts) were excluded. (2) JAJA Architects’ CPH2050 project (2017–2018), a Danish Arts Foundation–funded collaboration with NIRAS exploring spatial implications of AVs via scenario planning in the Copenhagen region. Nine visualisations were produced; three were selected where AVs were explicitly depicted. Visualisations incorporated inputs from transport planners, municipal staff, public transport authorities, architects, landscape architects, and users. Analytic approach: VDA grounded in semiotics (first-order denotation; second-order connotation linked to MLP landscape/niche themes) and compositional interpretation (content, color, spatial organization, focalisers, light). Three modalities guided analysis—technological (not emphasized), compositional, and social/political. Coding identified visual signs (e.g., vehicles, infrastructure, users, symbols) and their connotations (e.g., safety, sustainability, multimodality, nationalism), then interpreted how they position AVs relative to system pressures and modes. Comparative analysis traced temporal evolution, contextual translation, and modal hierarchies across the two actors’ depictions.

- Incumbent regime stabilization through AV visuals (Daimler): - 2015 depiction centers the vehicle as focal object; safety is framed via machine sensing (virtual crosswalk, sensors), erasing driver responsibility and prioritizing vehicle control over public space. Urbanization is represented paradoxically: denser, futuristic cityscapes with expanded road domains and AVs controlling pedestrian movement. - 2017 depiction shifts to a system-level streetscape with multimodal signifiers (bikes, e-scooters, shuttles, metro), but compositional cues privilege cars/AVs: discontinuous cycle lanes yield to AVs; conflict points (delivery vans in bike lanes, parking layouts) reveal car-first design beneath a veneer of multimodality—masking business-as-usual. - 2018 depiction translates the same imaginary to a U.S. context by swapping cultural signs (palm trees, US flag, doughnut shop), while diluting sustainability (fewer cyclists, larger vehicles, privatized robotaxis). This transplant illustrates gaps when imaginaries are moved across contexts lacking robust transit backbones. - Counter-imaginary prioritizing liveability and subaltern regimes (JAJA Architects): - Urban liveability framing casts AVs as secondary to spatial quality: commercial vibrancy, waterfront recreation, shade, and cycling are foregrounded; the AV is literally in shadow, with safety communicated via fixed spatial infrastructure (signals, crossings) and social cues rather than machine vision. - Suburban transformation reclaims streets from throughput to social/active uses (children’s play, jogging), with only a distant AV. Design slows traffic and emphasizes health, safety, and sustainability (solar panels, greenhouse, trees), speaking to families and community life rather than elite business users. - Mobility hub hierarchy centers public transport and cycling, with AV shuttles as feeders in the mid-ground; the vanishing point and light emphasize trains and pedestrian flows, integrating digital tools (smartphone navigation, real-time info) without techno-dominance. - Implications for transition pathways: Daimler’s visuals co-evolve with landscape pressures and niche signals but ultimately stabilize the automobility regime; JAJA’s visuals support regime destabilization via reallocation of space, multimodality, and liveability-led urbanism. Visualisations are not neutral; they articulate political choices that may advantage certain users and business models.

The analysis addresses the research aim by revealing how AV visualisations operate as sociotechnical imaginaries that either reinforce incumbency or open pathways to system reconfiguration. Daimler’s evolving but car-centric imagery demonstrates incumbent adaptability to climate, safety, and urbanization discourses while preserving road dominance and vehicle sales models. JAJA’s imagery reframes AVs as supportive tools within a broader multimodal, liveability-driven urban agenda, redirecting attention from vehicle capabilities to spatial governance and public realm transformation. This matters for policy because visuals shape expectations, constrain or expand the imagined solution space, and can depoliticize AV debates by embedding assumptions (e.g., safety solved by automation; sustainability via nominal multimodality). Recognizing visuals as instruments in transition politics enables planners and policymakers to interrogate latent meanings, reassert public objectives (health, equity, climate), and prioritize investments (public transport, street reallocation) that do not depend on automation to deliver benefits.

The paper contributes an automobility–imaginaries–transitions analytical framework to interpret AV visuals as political instruments within sociotechnical change. Through comparative VDA of Daimler and JAJA images, it shows how incumbent actors deploy multimodality signifiers to stabilize car-dominant regimes, whereas external actors promote liveability, spatial transformation, and subaltern modes with AVs as feeders. It calls for planners and policymakers to move beyond forecasting AV trajectories to specifying desired outcomes and using collaborative, context-sensitive visualisation methods to align AV deployment with local goals. Incorporating power and politics within transition frameworks is essential, as different imaginaries create winners and losers across industries and user groups. Future research should examine post-2018 shifts (e.g., COVID-19 era emphases on sterility and private ownership) and investigate how imaginaries influence decision-making and market power in the dissemination of AV futures.

- Temporal scope: Data limited to 2015–2018; subsequent landscape shifts (e.g., COVID-19) and technologies may alter imaginaries (e.g., from sharing/sustainability to sterility/private ownership). - Method focus: Emphasis on visual analysis; did not empirically test impacts on policymaking or creators’ reflexivity about the systems they depict. - Context transferability: Analysis highlights risks in transplanting imaginaries across regions with differing transit backbones; broader cross-cultural sampling could refine conclusions. - Data selection: Purposive sampling of three images per actor may not capture full variance of each actor’s outputs.