News
Stanford studies human impact when self-driving car returns control to driver
Researchers involved with the Stanford University Dynamic Design Lab have completed a study that examines how human drivers respond when an autonomous driving system returns control of a car to them. The Lab’s mission, according to its website, is to “study the design and control of motion, especially as it relates to cars and vehicle safety. Our research blends analytical approaches to vehicle dynamics and control together with experiments in a variety of test vehicles and a healthy appreciation for the talents and demands of human drivers.” The results of the study were published on December 6 in the first edition of the journal Science Robotics.
Holly Russell, lead author of study and former graduate student at the Dynamic Design Lab says, “Many people have been doing research on paying attention and situation awareness. That’s very important. But, in addition, there is this physical change and we need to acknowledge that people’s performance might not be at its peak if they haven’t actively been participating in the driving.”
The report emphasizes that the DDL’s autonomous driving program is its own proprietary system and is not intended to mimic any particular autonomous driving system currently available from any automobile manufacturer, such as Tesla’s Autopilot.
The study found that the period of time known as “the handoff” — when the computer returns control of a car to a human driver — can be an especially risky period, especially if the speed of the vehicle has changed since the last time the person had direct control of the car. The amount of steering input required to accurately control a vehicle varies according to speed. Greater input is needed at slower speeds while less movement of the wheel is required at higher speeds.
People learn over time how to steer accurately at all speeds based on experience. But when some time elapses during which the driver is not directly involved in steering the car, the researchers found that drivers require a brief period of adjustment before they can accurately steer the car again. The greater the speed change while the computer is in control, the more erratic the human drivers were in their steering inputs upon resuming control.
“Even knowing about the change, being able to make a plan and do some explicit motor planning for how to compensate, you still saw a very different steering behavior and compromised performance,” said Lene Harbott, co-author of the research and a research associate in the Revs Program at Stanford.
Handoff From Computer to Human
The testing was done on a closed course. The participants drove for 15 seconds on a course that included a straightaway and a lane change. Then they took their hands off the wheel and the car took over, bringing them back to the start. After familiarizing themselves with the course four times, the researchers altered the steering ratio of the cars at the beginning of the next lap. The changes were designed to mimic the different steering inputs required at different speeds. The drivers then went around the course 10 more times.
Even though they were notified of the changes to the steering ratio, the drivers’ steering maneuvers differed significantly from their paths previous to the modifications during those ten laps. At the end, the steering ratios were returned to the original settings and the drivers drove 6 more laps around the course. Again the researchers found the drivers needed a period of adjustment to accurately steer the cars.
The DDL experiment is very similar to a classic neuroscience experiment that assesses motor adaptation. In one version, participants use a hand control to move a cursor on a screen to specific points. The way the cursor moves in response to their control is adjusted during the experiment and they, in turn, change their movements to make the cursor go where they want it to go.
Just as in the driving test, people who take part in the experiment have to adjust to changes in how the controller moves the cursor. They also must adjust a second time if the original response relationship is restored. People can performed this experiment themselves by adjusting the speed of the cursor on their personal computers.
“Even though there are really substantial differences between these classic experiments and the car trials, you can see this basic phenomena of adaptation and then after-effect of adaptation,” says IIana Nisky, another co-author of the study and a senior lecturer at Ben-Gurion University in Israel “What we learn in the laboratory studies of adaptation in neuroscience actually extends to real life.”
In neuroscience this is explained as a difference between explicit and implicit learning, Nisky explains. Even when a person is aware of a change, their implicit motor control is unaware of what that change means and can only figure out how to react through experience.
Federal and state regulators are currently working on guidelines that will apply to Level 5 autonomous cars. What the Stanford research shows is that until full autonomy becomes a reality, the “hand off” moment will represent a period of special risk, not because of any failing on the part of computers but rather because of limitations inherent in the brains of human drivers.
The best way to protect ourselves from that period of risk is to eliminate the “hand off” period entirely by ceding total control of driving to computers as soon as possible.
Elon Musk said he is planning to give “every one of his SpaceX shares to every kid in America” in 2027, stating that “this will be the first of many.”
SpaceX went public earlier this year, and its stock price has been relatively stable since leveling off shortly after its IPO. Based on its current price, it’s a gift of just over $10 billion to children across the United States.
It appears to be closely related to President Donald Trump’s bank accounts for children, which were set up earlier this year as Trump Accounts.
Just hours earlier, Anthropic had announced the establishment of its Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, “a new wholly-owned entity dedicated entirely to public benefit.” Musk responded by stating he recommended “giving the shares directly to the public,” and that he would be doing it that way.
Just a little bit later, Musk said children across the U.S. would be getting a share from him:
Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America.
This will be the first of many.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026
There are roughly 70 million children, meaning someone under the age of 18, in the United States, according to the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Musk’s ownership of SpaceX stock shows he has around 849 million Class A shares of SpaceX stock, according to filings with the SEC.
Elon Musk revealed in a post on X that “Permits were impossible to get,” explaining the fate of The Boring Company’s most ambitious East Coast proposal.
The comment responded to a query about what became of his July 20, 2017 announcement that he had “just received verbal govt approval” for an underground Hyperloop connecting New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., capable of carrying passengers from the Big Apple to the Nation’s Capital in just 29 minutes.
The Boring Company receives verbal ‘approval’ to build NY to DC Hyperloop tunnel
The 2017 post, which envisioned city-center stations and multiple elevators in each city, sparked immediate scrutiny. Local and state officials in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and D.C. said they had no knowledge of any approval. A White House spokesperson confirmed only “promising conversations” about the transformative infrastructure.
Musk clarified shortly after that there was “still a lot of work” to do for formal approvals.
@cybrtrkguy Permits were impossible to get
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026
Limited progress followed, as Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s administration issued a conditional utility permit and supported work near Fort Meade. In 2018, Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary permit for site preparation and excavation on a vacant lot at 53 New York Ave. NE in the NoMa neighborhood, which The Boring Company said could become a station.
A draft environmental assessment for a D.C.-Baltimore segment was released in 2019. Yet, by April 2021, the company had removed the project from its website, and the Federal Highway Administration reported receiving no indication of further interest. Communication with Maryland officials had ceased.
The full corridor would have required coordination among the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, the Federal Highway Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, and other agencies.
Environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, utility clearances, and approvals for novel infrastructure added to the overall complexity of the project and its approval.
Speculation on the permitting barriers centers around a few factors, but a multi-state, multi-level route involving unproven high-speed vacuum-tube technology inherently triggers exhaustive safety, environmental, and engineering reviews that can stretch for years, even for conventional projects.
There are also other elements, of course, like officials who may face political exposure if a privately funded, untested system encountered anything such as cost overruns, delays, or safety issues. On the outset of this project, there were limited things such as engineering plans or demonstrated technology maturity, which also added to the potential skepticism.
The East Coast vision for Boring Co., once framed as a privately funded revolution that could reshape Northeast travel, quietly ended without construction of the promised network. Musk’s recent statement frames the outcome as a regulatory impasse, unfortunate but not unexpected.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk took to his social media platform X on Sunday to remind everyone that the Roadster’s true meaning is not about company growth or adding dollars to shareholders’ pockets. Sometimes, you just do things because you can.
Following the Roadster’s epic unveiling event last Thursday, skeptics and critics of the company or the project itself came out to say that the vehicle is a pointless project because it is not geared toward growing the company, delivering supreme margins for profitability, nor does it contribute to the big picture of Artificial/Super Intelligence.
But that’s just the thing: Roadster is not meant to be some shareholder dream; it’s meant to be a vehicle that people buy just because it is something awesome, unique, and the first of its kind.
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
Musk had to remind those who are skeptical about the Roadster’s importance to the company mission that while it is not a major contributor to Tesla’s long-term goals, it is something that is being built just because it can be:
“Optimus and Cybercab will be the vast majority of Tesla’s value. The only things that will scale to incredible size (K2 and beyond) economically are super intelligence, robots, solar power, and mass to space. And, of course, if you have the first two, the rest will follow. But Roadster is super cool, so we’re doing it anyway.”
Musk has said on many occasions that Optimus would be the project that would make up the vast majority of Tesla’s value in the coming years.
Robotics will be a major focus of Tesla over the coming years, especially as Musk believes Optimus will enable work to be optional for humans and will enable what he calls “High Universal Income.”
Optimus and Cybercab will be the vast majority of Tesla’s value.
The only things that will scale to incredible size (K2 and beyond) economically are super intelligence, robots, solar power and mass to space.
And, of course, if you have the first two, the rest will follow.
But Roadster is super cool, so we’re doing it anyway.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2026
Cybercab will be a passive income opportunity for owners, Musk and Tesla have said for a very long time, as a fleet of self-driving vehicles will operate within a ride-hailing Robotaxi service that won’t require a human driver to be present.
Tesla investors are more than enthusiastic about the company’s future projects, at least from a general consensus perspective. However, it is important to note that the Roadster is a fun and cool project that pushes the boundaries of what people thought was possible for an automobile.
What we saw last week was the first true example of a flying car, and despite the backlash about how it might not contribute to Tesla’s grand ambitions, it’s okay to have fun sometimes, too.
Elon Musk will give ‘every kid in America’ a SpaceX share in 2027
Elon Musk reveals why Boring Co’s biggest East Coast project never happened
Tesla CEO Elon Musk reminds everyone about Roadster’s true meaning
SpaceX reveals how its 1 Million AI satellite network will work and prevent space collisions
Tesla Roadster: Three configs, one can fly, 0-60 in 0.8 seconds
