Humans and intelligent vehicles : the hope, the help, and the harm.

Fisher, Donald L.; Lohrenz, Maura; Moore, David; Nadler, Eric; Pollard, John K. · 2016 · ROSA P / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the critical role of human factors in the development and deployment of intelligent vehicles, arguing that while automation offers significant benefits in safety, congestion reduction, and mobility, these hopes are unlikely to be realized without rigorous attention to human behavior. The authors contend that intuition is an unreliable guide for ergonomic design and that failing to account for human limitations can lead to suboptimal systems or increased harm. The review focuses primarily on Level 2 and Level 3 automation, where humans remain in the loop either as supervisors or as backup operators, identifying specific risks associated with vigilance, situation awareness, and trust. The authors analyze these challenges through the lens of established human factors research, drawing parallels between surface transportation and aviation. They examine the evolution of vehicle technologies from Level 1 (e.g., anti-lock braking) to Level 4 (full automation), highlighting how human interaction changes at each stage. The analysis relies on existing literature regarding vigilance tasks, mode errors, and transfer-of-control dynamics. Specific experimental findings are cited, such as studies measuring the time required for drivers to regain situation awareness after a control transfer signal. For instance, research indicates that drivers require at least eight seconds to recognize latent hazards as effectively as continuously monitoring drivers, suggesting that automation should remain active as a "lifeguard" during this period. The paper also reviews issues related to Driver-Vehicle Interfaces (DVIs), including the cognitive load of voice-activated systems and the risks of inattentional and change blindness associated with head-up displays. Key findings reveal distinct hazards at different automation levels. At Level 2, drivers act as supervisors but are notoriously poor at vigilance tasks, leading to rapid loss of situation awareness. Additionally, complex DVIs intended to reduce workload may inadvertently increase cognitive distraction. Mode errors occur when drivers fail to understand the system's operational state, while trust issues manifest as either "level creep" (overtrust leading to misuse) or mistrust (disuse when the system could perform better). At Level 3, the primary concern is the transfer of control. Drivers who are out of the loop may lose critical skills over time and struggle to resume control safely, particularly during unexpected transfers. The paper identifies that current designs often fail to provide sufficient time or information for safe handovers, increasing crash risk. The significance of this work lies in its call for the human factors community to provide the "help" necessary to realize the "hope" of intelligent vehicles while mitigating "harm." The authors conclude that intelligent vehicle technologies require intimate knowledge of human behavior to prevent disuse, misuse, and abuse of automation. They advocate for careful experimentation, the development of guidelines for DVIs, and the integration of human factors principles into the design of automation envelopes. By addressing issues of trust, vigilance, and interface design, the field can ensure that automation enhances rather than compromises safety, particularly as autonomous vehicles enter the market.

Key finding

Drivers require at least eight seconds after a control transfer signal to regain latent hazard perception skills comparable to continuous monitoring.

Methodology

review

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• automation
• automation surprise
• automation complacency bias
• situational awareness
• trust calibration
• mode awareness

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: design guidelines
• Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework, theory or model