The automotive industry promises that autonomous vehicles will be significantly safer on the road and make fewer human errors. But even though self-driving cars are quite advanced, their interaction with human psychology hinders seamless usability. According to a newly published study, the gap is not due to a flaw in the system or technology, but between understanding the technology and optimizing it for human behavior behind the wheel.
Autonomous, at the expense of vigilance
Ronald McLeod, honorary professor of engineering psychology at Heriot-Watt University, writes in his book Transitioning to Autonomy that there is a massive communication gap in how self-driving systems communicate with people. Many drivers have not felt comfortable sitting behind the intelligent wheels as the car makes decisions on behalf of the human driver.
The autonomous technical interface is often unable to clearly see what is in front of them, as opposed to what the driver can see and perceive. For example, the sudden appearance of an object or person in front of the car can lead to an accident or a technical failure of the car while the driver remains in the front seat as a spectator. The driver is unsure of possible changes in the vehicle’s response and therefore doubts the reliability of the system.
Even an industry leader like Tesla couldn’t figure it out, and there are numerous investigations following serious accidents involving cars with Autopilot and fully automated driving systems (FSD) on. Additionally, the company cautions users that they should be ready to take control if they find the system getting out of control.
This often reinforces the fear of self-driving cars and their true independence. Simply put, drivers cannot relax and are constantly afraid of subtle signs of danger if they are too reliant on them or too skeptical.
Anxious passenger in the driver’s seat
The constant stress on the human psyche caused by intelligent cars not only leads to driver fatigue, but also makes him extremely sensitive to unexpected incidents with autonomous technology. For drivers, it feels more like a “watch and wait” trap since driving ultimately depends on human supervision. Professor McLeod describes it as a vigilance task. The convenience of self-driving cars is related to the driver’s low level of attention, resulting in a slower response time in emergencies.
Broadly speaking, drivers experience cognitive stress behind the wheel of an autonomous car. Brands like Tesla are looking forward to the development of smart cars in full swing, and this also requires focusing on bridging the gap between human psyche and self-driving systems. Expert reviews through AI models such as Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) represent a robust approach that incorporates human insights and feedback directly related to autonomous driving technology. The book highlights the need for a solution to bridge this gap and create human-centered interfaces to make self-driving cars safer in the future.
