Automotive Commuters

Resource Type
Dataset : Survey and aggregate data
  • Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Berlin
Publication Date
  • Kantar, Berlin (Data Collector)
  • ZA:
    • Political Attitudes and Behavior
    • Natural Environment, Nature
  • CESSDA Topic Classification:
    • Domestic political issues
    • Transport, travel and mobility
    • Natural environment
  • Abstract

    The online survey determined the mobility behaviour of car commuters and their attitudes towards current and future mobility. Both self-drivers and passengers were considered. The sample was designed in such a way that urban and rural regions could be considered equally in the evaluation in order to identify structural differences between city and country. Topics: 1. Mobility behaviour: means of transport most frequently used to get to work; means of transport in the household (petrol-driven car, diesel-driven car, natural gas-driven car, e-car, hybrid car, scooter, motorcycle or moped, electric scooter, bicycle,e-bike or pedelec, e-scooter, other, none of these); company car; commuting distance to work (outward and return journey); commuting time; feeling of stress due to daily commuting; frequency of car use for commuting to work (as driver or Reasons for variability in the choice of transport mode for the travel to work (e.g. weather/temperature, personal well-being, private matters in connection with the journey to work, etc.); reasons for the use of mobility services (e.g. car sharing) for private journeys or for travel; reasons against the use of mobility services for professional use (e.g. too expensive, too short a range, etc.); Most important and least important characteristic of means of transport (maximum difference scaling: comfort, quick achievement of goals, low initial investment, low operating costs, barrier-free equipment, low pollutant emissions, maximum flexibility, maximum reliability, safety for life and limb, more physical activity). 2. Attitudes towards mobility: agreement with selected statements on traffic and mobility (weighing up factors: interested in cars, like to try out the latest technical innovations, debate on environmental and climate protection focuses too much on driving and traffic, follow political debates on mobility and traffic closely, having my own car is important to me, like to use public transport, spend too much time in the car); political interest; perceived need for change in the organisation of traffic and mobility (fundamental change in behaviour, individual corrections, everything can stay as it is); problem perception of mobility: ranking of various important transport policy aspects (climate protection, noise reduction, digital traffic guidance to avoid traffic jams, autonomous transport systems, air pollution control, traffic safety, expansion of the road network, expansion of the rail network); conflicts in the region: Preferences with regard to the development of infrastructure based on pairs of opposites (more parking spaces - more lanes for buses or trams, more lanes - more cycle lanes, more parking spaces - more cycle lanes, more lanes for cars - more lanes for buses or trams, unrestricted travel in urban areas - more pedestrian zones, green wave for cars - green wave for buses, development of motorways - development of the rail network for long-distance transport); responsible actors for changes in transport and mobility (politics, the economy, motorists, all citizens). 3. Behavioural change: problematic aspects of driving (environmental damage, congestion, lack of parking space, lack of road infrastructure, traffic noise, stress, high costs, other road users, lost time, other, none of these); willingness to switch to a more environmentally friendly car; ability to avoid using one´s own car for various journeys (commuting to work, journeys during working hours, shopping, leisure time, holidays); reasons against switching from a car to another mode of transport for commuting (e.g. no alternative means of transport available, no seamless public transport connection/too many changes, etc.); reasons for switching (open); factors with the greatest influence on the decision to switch (e.g. significant reduction in emissions, personal contribution to environmental protection, rising fuel prices, etc.); expectations of politicians with regard to switching from cars to more environmentally friendly means of transport (regulatory intervention vs. and leave the conversion to the free forces of the market); e-mobility: comprehensive switch to e-mobility good for environmental and climate protection; reasons for e-mobility (e.g. more environmentally friendly technology, etc.); reasons against e-mobility (short range, etc.). 4. Current measures: climate protection possible by reforms in the transport sector; awareness of current measures of the Federal Government to promote environmentally and climate-friendlier transport (open); awareness of current measures of transport policy (e.g. driving bans in large cities, conversion of buses to e-mobility, etc.); acceptance of these political measures; impact of driving bans for older diesel vehicles. 5. Future measures: potential future measures for cleaner transport (open); acceptance of potential future measures for cleaner transport (ranking: Increase prices for petrol and diesel, introduce a CO2 tax, introduce a speed limit of 130 km/h on motorways, introduce a speed limit of 30 km/ha in city centres, promote research into alternative drive systems, no new registration of vehicles with internal combustion engines, expand public transport, expand rental services, Driving bans on off-road vehicles and SUVs for private use, car-free city centres, introduction of a city toll in large cities, abolition of tax breaks for company cars, higher taxation of aircraft kerosene, lower taxation of tickets for local and long-distance public transport, expansion of Park+Ride offers. Demography: age; sex; employment status; education; assessment of own economic situation; net household income; household size; number of children under 18 in the household; party sympathy. Additionally coded: Federal state; city size; weighting factor.
Temporal Coverage
  • 2019-09-02 / 2019-09-15
Geographic Coverage
  • Germany (DE)
Sampled Universe
German-speaking car commuters (self-driving and passengers) aged 18 and over in Germany
Non-probability: Quota; Sampling Procedure Comment: Weighting according to socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex, education, region, size of town) using structural data from the 2016 microcensus
Time Dimension
  • Cross-section
Collection Mode
  • Self-administered questionnaire: Web-based
Data and File Information
  • Number of Variables: 249
0 - Data and documents are released for everybody.
All metadata from GESIS DBK are available free of restriction under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. However, GESIS requests that you actively acknowledge and give attribution to all metadata sources, such as the data providers and any data aggregators, including GESIS. For further information see
Alternative Identifiers
  • ZA6741 (Type: ZA-No.)
  • WAHLEN (Type: FDZ)

Update Metadata: 2020-10-21 | Issue Number: 15 | Registration Date: 2020-05-07