RESUMO
The urban traffic environment is characterized by the presence of a highly differentiated pool of users, including vulnerable ones. This makes vehicle automation particularly difficult to implement, as a safe coordination among those users is hard to achieve in such an open scenario. Different strategies have been proposed to address these coordination issues, but all of them have been found to be costly for they negatively affect a range of human values (e.g. safety, democracy, accountability ). In this paper, we claim that the negative value impacts entailed by each of these strategies can be interpreted as lack of what we call Meaningful Human Control over different parts of a sociotechnical system. We argue that Meaningful Human Control theory provides the conceptual tools to reduce those unwanted consequences, and show how "designing for meaningful human control" constitutes a valid strategy to address coordination issues. Furthermore, we showcase a possible application of this framework in a highly dynamic urban scenario, aiming to safeguard important values such as safety, democracy, individual autonomy, and accountability. Our meaningful human control framework offers a perspective on coordination issues that allows to keep human actors in control while minimizing the active, operational role of the drivers. This approach makes ultimately possible to promote a safe and responsible transition to full automation.
RESUMO
Tesla's Full Self-Driving Beta (FSD) program introduces technology that extends the operational design domain of standard Autopilot from highways to urban roads. This research conducted 103 in-depth semi-structured interviews with users of Tesla's FSD Beta and standard Autopilot to evaluate the impact on user behavior and perception. It was found that drivers became complacent over time with Autopilot engaged, failing to monitor the system, and engaging in safety-critical behaviors, such as hands-free driving, enabled by weights placed on the steering wheel, mind wandering, or sleeping behind the wheel. Drivers' movement of eyes, hands, and feet became more relaxed with experience with Autopilot engaged. FSD Beta required constant supervision as unfinished technology, which increased driver stress and mental and physical workload as drivers had to be constantly prepared for unsafe system behavior (doing the wrong thing at the worst time). The hands-on wheel check was not considered as being necessarily effective in driver monitoring and guaranteeing safe use. Drivers adapt to automation over time, engaging in potentially dangerous behaviors. Some behavior seems to be a knowing violation of intended use (e.g., weighting the steering wheel), and other behavior reflects a misunderstanding or lack of experience (e.g., using Autopilot on roads not designed for). As unfinished Beta technology, FSD Beta can introduce new forms of stress and can be inherently unsafe. We recommend future research to investigate to what extent these behavioral changes affect accident risk and can be alleviated through driver state monitoring and assistance.