Toward Shared Control Between Automated Vehicles and Users

Terken, Jacques; Pfleging, Bastian · 2020 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1007/s42154-019-00087-9

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

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

Summary

This paper addresses the tension between the societal goal of fully automated, driver-out-of-the-loop vehicles and the user’s desire for personalization and situational control. While full automation (SAE Level 5) is motivated by the potential to eliminate human error and reduce fatalities, the authors argue that strictly rule-based automated systems may fail to satisfy user needs regarding comfort, efficiency, and social courtesy. The research question centers on whether users will accept complete removal from the driving loop or if shared control mechanisms are necessary to allow human influence over vehicle behavior. The authors employ a conceptual analysis rather than empirical experimentation. They utilize Michon’s taxonomy of driving control (strategic, tactical, and operational) to categorize driving tasks. The study identifies and analyzes eleven specific use cases derived from traffic observations and expert discussions, comparing manual driving behaviors with the likely defensive, rule-compliant behaviors of fully automated systems. These scenarios cover strategic decisions, such as route selection, and tactical maneuvers, such as overtaking, speed adjustments, and interactions with pedestrians or other vehicles. The analysis reveals significant gaps between automated system behavior and user preferences. In manual driving, humans frequently deviate from strict rules to optimize throughput, meet arrival times, or demonstrate courtesy. For instance, drivers may speed up to compensate for delays, exploit small gaps in traffic to overtake, or yield to pedestrians and bicyclists even when they have right-of-way, to facilitate flow or show politeness. Fully automated vehicles, prioritizing safety and rule adherence, would likely remain passive in these situations, leading to inefficiencies or user dissatisfaction. The authors conclude that full out-of-the-loop automation is likely unacceptable because it prevents users from exercising expert judgment and personal preference in complex social and tactical contexts. The significance of this work lies in its argument for shared control as a necessary feature of future automated vehicles. The authors propose that systems should allow for both customization (pre-set preferences) and ad hoc intervention (real-time influence). They suggest that Human-Machine Interfaces (HMI) must be designed to inform users of situations where intervention is possible and solicit input, particularly under time-critical conditions. The paper implies that automated vehicles should not merely act as proficient rule-followers but should enable users to act as experts, blending system safety with human contextual understanding and social nuance.

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.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-09; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• automation
• automation surprise
• automation complacency bias
• driverless ads
• acceptance adoption
• takeover transitions

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).

• Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework