This analysis reveals significant behavioral predictors of driver takeover in automated vehicles, indicating potential safety improvements.
With the rapid adoption of automated driving systems, ensuring safe and efficient driver takeover has become a crucial challenge for road safety. This study introduces a novel psychological framework for understanding and predicting takeover behavior in conditionally automated vehicles, leveraging an extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model enriched by real-world driver experience. Drawing on survey data from 385 automated driving system users recruited in Shaoguan City, China, through face-to-face questionnaire administration covering various ADS types (ACC, lane-keeping, automatic parking), we demonstrate that driver attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms are significant determinants of takeover intention, collectively explaining nearly half of its variance (R2 = 48.7%). Importantly, our analysis uncovers that both intention and perceived behavioral control have robust, direct effects on actual takeover behavior. Crucially, this work is among the first to reveal that individual user characteristics—such as driving experience and ADS (automated driving system) usage frequency—substantially moderate these psychological pathways: experienced or frequent users rely more on perceived control and attitude, while less experienced drivers are more susceptible to social influences. By advancing a multi-dimensional psychological model that integrates personal, social, and experiential moderators, our findings deliver actionable insights for the design of adaptive human–machine interfaces, tailored driver training, and targeted safety interventions in the context of automated driving. Using structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation (χ2/df = 2.25, CFI = 0.941, RMSEA = 0.057), this psychological approach complements traditional engineering models by revealing that takeover behavior variance is explained at 58.3%.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
LI et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: