Cited by 6Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySafety Systems Engineering in AutonomyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

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

Open access
Suryana, Lucas Elbert, Nordhoff, Sina, Calvert, Simeon, Zgonnikov, Arkady, van Arem, Bart·2025·Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trf.2025.04.026

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Suryana, L. E., Nordhoff, S., Calvert, S., Zgonnikov, A., & van Arem, B.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Suryana, Lucas Elbert
Venue
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-08
Volume
113
Pages
213-236
ISSN
1369-8478 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410218573
Cited by
6
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (0006552/TRA/D/19/lpdp2021)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
meaningful human control, partially automated driving, Tesla Autopilot, driver responsibility, accountability, driver expectations, driver confidence, safety procedures, adverse weather, user satisfaction, driver-automation interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review