Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review reveals unbalanced testing scenarios and gaps in takeover strategies during automated driving failures, highlighting the need for standardized safety frameworks.
Before human drivers are fully removed from the vehicle control loop, transitioning control between automation and human drivers in safety-critical scenarios remains a major challenge. Although existing research has proposed several taxonomies to categorize safety-critical scenarios from technical and human-factors perspectives, gaps remain. Thus, we propose a framework compatible with previous taxonomies from multiple perspectives. The taxonomy includes three dimensions: the source of harm, the urgency level, and the trigger conditions. We then conducted a systematic literature review of safety-critical scenarios in existing empirical studies (N = 292) using our proposed taxonomy. We identified several major research gaps, including the highly unbalanced scenario types, limited understanding of information needs, and a lack of appropriate strategies to improve takeover performance in specific scenarios. These findings underscore the need for a unified framework to categorize and analyze safety-critical scenarios, supporting researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in testing and improving the safety of automated vehicles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: