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
Elon Musk’s Neuralink sparks BCI race in China
One of the most prominent is NeuroXess, which launched in 2021 and is already testing implants in patients.
Neuralink, founded by Elon Musk, is helping spark a surge of brain-computer interface (BCI) development in China, where startups are moving quickly into human trials with strong state backing.
One of the most prominent is NeuroXess, which launched in 2021 and is already testing implants in patients.
Neuralink’s clinical work and public demonstrations have drawn worldwide attention to invasive brain implants that allow patients to control digital devices using their minds. The company is currently running a global clinical trial and is also busy preparing for its next product, Blindsight, which would restore vision to people with visual impairments.
Neuralink’s visibility has helped accelerate similar efforts in China. Beijing last year classified brain-computer interfaces as a strategic sector and issued a roadmap calling for two or three globally competitive companies by 2030, as per the Financial Times. Since February last year, at least 10 clinical trials for invasive brain chips have launched in the country.
NeuroXess recently reported that a paralyzed patient was able to control a computer cursor within five days of implantation. Founder Tiger Tao credited government support for helping shorten the path from research to trials.
Investment activity has followed the policy push. Industry data show dozens of financing rounds for Chinese BCI startups over the past year, reflecting rising capital interest in the field. Ultimately, while Neuralink remains one of the most closely watched players globally, its momentum has clearly energized competitors abroad.
News
Tesla Supercharger vandalized with frozen cables and anti-Musk imagery amid Sweden union dispute
The incident comes amid Tesla’s ongoing labor dispute with IF Metall.
Tesla’s Supercharger site in Vansbro, Sweden, was vandalized during peak winter travel weeks. Images shared to local media showed frozen charging cables and a banner reading “Go home Elon,” which was complete with a graphic of Musk’s controversial gesture.
The incident comes amid Tesla’s ongoing labor dispute with IF Metall, which has been striking against the company for more than two years over collective bargaining agreements, as noted in a report from Expressen.
Local resident Stefan Jakobsson said he arrived at the Vansbro charging station to find a board criticizing Elon Musk and accusing Tesla of strikebreaking. He also found the charging cables frozen after someone seemingly poured water over them.
“I laughed a little and it was pretty nicely drawn. But it was a bit unnecessary,” Jakobsson said. “They don’t have to do vandalism because they’re angry at Elon Musk.”
The site has seen heavy traffic during Sweden’s winter sports holidays, with travelers heading toward Sälen and other mountain destinations. Jakobsson said long lines formed last weekend, with roughly 50 Teslas and other EVs waiting to charge.
Tesla Superchargers in Sweden are typically open to other electric vehicle brands, making them a reliable option for all EV owners.
Tesla installed a generator at the location after sympathy strikes from other unions disrupted power supply to some stations. The generator itself was reportedly not working on the morning of the incident, though it is unclear whether that was connected to the protest.
The dispute between Tesla and IF Metall centers on the company’s refusal to sign a collective agreement covering Swedish workers. The strike has drawn support from other unions, including Seko, which has taken steps affecting electricity supply to certain Tesla facilities. Tesla Sweden, for its part, has insisted that its workers are already fairly compensated and it does not need a collective agreement,
Jesper Pettersson, press spokesperson for IF Metall, criticized Tesla’s use of generators to keep charging stations running. Still, IF Metall emphasized that it strongly distances itself from the vandalism incident at the Vansbro Supercharger.
“We think it is remarkable that instead of taking the easy route and signing a collective agreement for our members, they are choosing to use every possible means to get around the strike,” Pettersson said.
News
Tesla Cybertruck owner credits FSD for saving life after freeway medical emergency
The incident was shared by the Tesla owner on social media platform X, where it caught the attention of numerous users, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
A Tesla Cybertruck owner has credited Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised for saving his life after he experienced a medical emergency on the freeway.
The incident was shared by the Tesla owner on social media platform X, where it caught the attention of numerous users, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
In a post on X, Cybertruck owner Rishi Vohra wrote that he had unintentionally fasted for 17 hours, taken medication, and experienced what he described as a severe allergic reaction while driving.
“What started as a normal drive turned terrifying fast. My body shut down. I passed out while driving on the freeway, mid-conversation with my wife on the phone,” he wrote.
Vohra stated that his Tesla was operating with FSD Supervised engaged at the time. According to his account, the Cybertruck detected that he had lost consciousness using its driver monitoring system, slowed down, activated hazard lights, and safely pulled over to the shoulder.
“Thank God my Tesla had Full Self-Driving engaged. It detected I lost consciousness (thanks to the driver monitoring system), immediately slowed, activated hazards, and safely pulled over to the shoulder. No crash. No danger to anyone else on the road,” Vohra wrote.
The Cybertruck owner added that his wife used Life360 to alert emergency services after hearing him go silent during their call. He said responders located him within five minutes. After being attended to, Vohra stated that the vehicle then drove him to the emergency room after he refused to leave his truck on the freeway.
“So the Tesla autonomously drove me the rest of the way to the ER. I walked in, got admitted, and they stabilized me overnight,” he wrote.
He later posted that he was being discharged and thanked Tesla and Elon Musk. Musk replied to the post, writing, “Glad you’re ok!” The official Tesla X account also reposted Vohra’s story with a heart emoji.
Tesla recently published updated safety data of vehicles operating with FSD (Supervised) engaged. As per Tesla’s latest North America figures, vehicles operating with FSD (Supervised) engaged recorded one major collision every 5,300,676 miles. The U.S. average is one major collision every 660,164 miles.
Considering the experience of the Cybertruck owner, Tesla’s safety data does seem to hold a lot of water. A vehicle that is manually driven would have likely crashed or caused a pileup if its driver lost consciousness in the middle of the freeway, after all.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink sparks BCI race in China
Tesla Supercharger vandalized with frozen cables and anti-Musk imagery amid Sweden union dispute
