(Mis-)use of standard Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta: Results from interviews with users of Tesla's FSD Beta

Nordhoff, Sina; Lee, John D.; Calvert, Simeon C.; Berge, Siri; Hagenzieker, Marjan; Happee, Riender · 2023 · Crossref

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1101520

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

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

Summary

This study investigates the behavioral adaptations and safety risks associated with Tesla’s standard Autopilot and its Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta system. Motivated by the expansion of automated driving from highways to complex urban environments, the research addresses a critical gap in understanding how drivers adapt to partially automated systems over time. While automation is theoretically expected to reduce workload and improve safety, prior evidence on indirect behavioral changes—such as complacency, overreliance, and altered travel patterns—remains ambiguous. The study specifically compares driver states and behaviors between the more mature highway-focused Autopilot and the unfinished, urban-capable FSD Beta to identify unintended safety risks. The researchers conducted 103 semi-structured interviews with Tesla owners, including 82% with access to FSD Beta and 18% using only standard Autopilot. Participants were recruited via online communities, primarily in North America. The data analysis employed a deductive framework based on Kulmala’s safety assessment model, combined with inductive coding to identify emergent themes regarding direct short-term adaptations, indirect long-term adaptations, and changes in travel behavior. The study focused on drivers’ situational awareness, workload, stress, and physical engagement with the vehicle (placement of eyes, hands, and feet). The findings reveal a stark contrast between the two systems. Standard Autopilot significantly reduced mental and physical workload and stress, leading to increased situational awareness regarding surrounding traffic. However, this relaxation fostered long-term complacency; drivers increasingly engaged in safety-critical behaviors such as hands-free driving (using weights on the steering wheel), mind-wandering, and sleeping. In contrast, FSD Beta, described as an "unfinished" technology, increased driver stress and mental workload. Because the system could perform unsafe maneuvers in complex urban settings, drivers felt compelled to constantly supervise and intervene, likening the experience to a high-effort job rather than a relaxing commute. Despite this heightened vigilance, drivers still adapted by reducing their physical engagement over time. The study found that the hands-on-wheel monitoring check was not perceived as effective in ensuring safe use. The significance of these findings lies in the demonstration that automation does not uniformly reduce risk; rather, it shifts the nature of driver engagement. Standard Autopilot promotes complacency and misuse through reduced workload, while FSD Beta introduces new stressors and potential for error due to its limited capabilities in complex environments. The authors conclude that current driver monitoring systems are insufficient to prevent dangerous adaptations. They recommend further research into how these behavioral changes affect accident risk and emphasize the need for improved driver state monitoring and assistance technologies to mitigate the unintended consequences of partial automation.

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-nvidia on 2026-08-10; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• automation surprise
• trust calibration
• hands on hands off engagement
• automation
• situational awareness
• automation complacency bias

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).

• Empirical Findings: self report data, observational prevalence
• Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework