Meaningful human control of partially automated driving systems: Insights from interviews with Tesla users

Partially automated driving systems are designed to perform specific driving tasks—such as steering, accelerating, and braking—while still requiring human drivers to monitor the environment and intervene when necessary. This shift of driving responsibilities from human drivers to automated systems raises concerns about accountability, particularly in scenarios involving unexpected events. To address these concerns, the concept of meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed. MHC emphasises the importance of humans retaining oversight and responsibility for decisions made by automated systems. Despite extensive theoretical discussion of MHC in driving automation, there is limited empirical research on how real-world partially automated systems align with MHC principles. This study offers two main contributions: (1) an empirical evaluation of MHC in partially automated driving, based on 103 semi-structured interviews with users of Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta systems; and (2) a methodological framework for assessing MHC through qualitative interview data. We operationalise the previously proposed tracking and tracing conditions of MHC using a set of evaluation criteria to determine whether these systems support meaningful human control in practice. Our findings indicate that several factors influence the degree to which MHC is achieved. Failures in tracking—where drivers' expectations regarding system safety are not adequately met—arise from technological limitations, susceptibility to environmental conditions (e.g., adverse weather or inadequate infrastructure), and discrepancies between technical performance and user satisfaction. Tracing performance—the ability to clearly assign responsibility—is affected by inconsistent adherence to safety protocols, varying levels of driver confidence, and the specific driving mode in use (e.g., Autopilot versus FSD Beta). These findings contribute to ongoing efforts to design partially automated driving systems that more effectively support meaningful human control and promote more appropriate use of automation. • Tracking and tracing compliance with meaningful human control (MHC) was evaluated in automated driving systems. • Discrepancies between the safety of intended functionality and perceived safety and trust affect tracking performance. • Personal preferences, different driving modes, and situational contexts influence tracing performance. • Current partially automated driving systems exhibit inconsistencies and challenges in complying with MHC principles.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Published
2025-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2025.04.026
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.32

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Meaningful human control of partially automated driving systems: Insights from interviews with Tesla users

Lucas Elbert Suryana, Bart van Arem, Arkady Zgonnikov, Simeon C. Calvert et al.
3 citations
Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
7.32
article

Meaningful human control of partially automated driving systems: Insights from interviews with Tesla users

Lucas Elbert Suryana, Bart van Arem, Arkady Zgonnikov, Simeon C. Calvert, Sina Nordhoff
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Partially automated driving systems are designed to perform specific driving tasks—such as steering, accelerating, and braking—while still requiring human drivers to monitor the environment and intervene when necessary. This shift of driving responsibilities from human drivers to automated systems raises concerns about accountability, particularly in scenarios involving unexpected events. To address these concerns, the concept of meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed. MHC emphasises the importance of humans retaining oversight and responsibility for decisions made by automated systems. Despite extensive theoretical discussion of MHC in driving automation, there is limited empirical research on how real-world partially automated systems align with MHC principles. This study offers two main contributions: (1) an empirical evaluation of MHC in partially automated driving, based on 103 semi-structured interviews with users of Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta systems; and (2) a methodological framework for assessing MHC through qualitative interview data. We operationalise the previously proposed tracking and tracing conditions of MHC using a set of evaluation criteria to determine whether these systems support meaningful human control in practice. Our findings indicate that several factors influence the degree to which MHC is achieved. Failures in tracking—where drivers' expectations regarding system safety are not adequately met—arise from technological limitations, susceptibility to environmental conditions (e.g., adverse weather or inadequate infrastructure), and discrepancies between technical performance and user satisfaction. Tracing performance—the ability to clearly assign responsibility—is affected by inconsistent adherence to safety protocols, varying levels of driver confidence, and the specific driving mode in use (e.g., Autopilot versus FSD Beta). These findings contribute to ongoing efforts to design partially automated driving systems that more effectively support meaningful human control and promote more appropriate use of automation. • Tracking and tracing compliance with meaningful human control (MHC) was evaluated in automated driving systems. • Discrepancies between the safety of intended functionality and perceived safety and trust affect tracking performance. • Personal preferences, different driving modes, and situational contexts influence tracing performance. • Current partially automated driving systems exhibit inconsistencies and challenges in complying with MHC principles.

Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and BehaviourVol. 113
University of California, Davis (US), Delft University of Technology (NL)
Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
7.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.