A human factors perspective on automated driving
DOI: 10.1080/1463922x.2017.1293187
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 critical human factors (HF) challenges associated with the development and deployment of automated vehicles (AVs). Motivated by the rapid advancement of automation technology and the lack of clarity regarding the human driver’s role in AVs, the study aims to identify commonalities and distinctive perspectives among experts. The authors highlight that while AVs promise improved safety and quality of life, the interaction between humans and automation remains poorly understood, particularly concerning vigilance, trust, and the transition between manual and automated control. The methodology involved semi-structured interviews with 12 expert researchers in the field of human factors and automated driving, conducted in April and May 2015. Participants, who averaged 19 years of experience, were selected to represent diverse international perspectives and ongoing research projects. A 35-item questionnaire guided the discussions, focusing on HF challenges, potential benefits, deployment scenarios, and public acceptance. The analysis synthesized these interviews into individual narratives to reveal consensus and discordance among the experts. The findings reveal a strong consensus that current HF research must prioritize the synergy between humans and automation, particularly for SAE Levels 2 through 4. Experts identified key challenges, including the human inability to maintain sustained vigilance, the difficulty of resuming manual control after disengagement, and the need for clear communication of system status and limitations. There was significant concern regarding "mode errors" and the unrealistic expectation that drivers can effectively supervise automation while performing other tasks. Consequently, experts suggested that AVs up to Level 4 must clearly inform drivers of their capabilities and ensure safety during mode transitions. Additionally, the study highlighted a disparity between the cautious stance of HF researchers—who argue that AVs should not be deployed until proven safe—and the industry’s rapid push toward introducing Level 3 and 4 systems. The significance of this work lies in its identification of specific HF requirements that must be met before AVs can be safely integrated into public roads. The authors conclude that driver training programs may need modification, and that research should focus on interactions between AVs, human drivers, and vulnerable road users. They warn against the premature deployment of automation that relies on human supervision, suggesting instead that future development should either focus on "background" automation that supports rather than replaces the driver, or on segregated environments for higher levels of automation. This perspective provides a critical framework for stakeholders, policymakers, and manufacturers to align technological development with human capabilities and safety standards.
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.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | OpenAlex-citations | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| archive | success | openalex | — | — | 5 | 2026-06-26 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-26 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-20 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 6 | 2026-06-20 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
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).
- Synthesis & Review: research agenda
- Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework