Shifting Paradigms and Conceptual Frameworks for Automated Driving

  • Patrice ReilhacEmail author
  • Nick Millett
  • Katharina HottelartEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


This article takes seriously how discourses of automated driving shape the world we are designing and the public’s perception of it. The metaphors which organize our thought and scaffold our conceptual frameworks betray our point of view: legacy, engineering-based or user-centered. Valeo’s Intuitive Driving strategy centers on the user experience and therefore on the evolving relationship between user and technology. Relationships are built on trust. Automated Driving involves an evolution of agency in a high stakes context with new implications for trust generation. It also entails a shift which has a huge impact both on industry and user: from horsepower to data-power. This shift fundamentally alters the nature of the relationship between human and vehicle. In the design of this relationship anthropomorphism is a central issue. Building a trusting human-machine relationship in automated driving inevitably means dealing with social robotics and affective computing where anthropomorphism in technology has been explored for many years. But the specificity of the automatic driving moment must be attended to: this is the only robot with an interior private mobile space. This new being will need a specific behavior designed for it, and already, a new discourse to speak of it.


Intuitive Intuitive driving Driving automation Human robot relation-ship 


  1. 1.
    Hawking S (2015) Elon musk and various other signatories’ public manifesto from January 2015,
  2. 2.
    Dr. Dieter Zetsche’s keynote at CES in 2015, Daimler CEOGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hyve Science Labs: See Autonomous Driving—The User Perspective by, TUHH and INSIUS (October 2015), the authors research user language by online data mining.
  4. 4.
    Shladover SE, Lappin J, Denaro RP, Smit BW (2014) Introduction: the transport research board’s 2013 workshop on road vehicle automation. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road Vehicle Automation. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Reilhac P, Millett N, Hottelart K (2015) Thinking intuitive driving automation. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road Vehicle Automation 2. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diederichs F, Bischoff S, Widlroither H, Reilhac P, Hottelart K, Kaiser F (2015) Smartphone integration & level 3 car automation—new cockpit concept & evaluation in simulatorGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flemisch FO, Adams CA, Conway SR, Goodrich KH, Palmer MT, Schutte PC (2003) The h-metaphor as a guideline for vehicle automation and interaction, NASA/TM-2003-212672Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reilhac P, From “human factors” to “User Experience” for level 3 car automation, the 2-in-1 Mobius concept, ERTRAC Annual Conference, Brussels. Accessed 05 Oct 2015
  10. 10.
    Turkle S (2011) Alone Together. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaufmann A (2007) Nissan’s creepy dashboard robot could make production.
  12. 12.
    Herrtwich RG (2014) The promises and pitfalls of vehicle automation, daimler, automated vehicles symposium presentation, San Francisco 2014Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barr A, Ramsey M (2015) Google tries to make its cars drive more like humans.
  14. 14.
    Hicks J (2015) Age of companion robots: jibo, pepper and now buddy.
  15. 15.
    Hofstadter D (1995) Preface 4: the ineradicable eliza effect and its dangers in fluid concepts and creative analogies: computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    2008 Nissan Pivo: Image © NissanGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    2014 Google Car: Image © GoogleGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Fraszczyk A, Brown P, Duan S (2015) Public perception of driverless trains. Urban Rail Transit 1(2): 78–86Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deleuze G, Guattari F (1988) A thousand plateaus, trans. In: Massumi B, Athlone 1988. LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reilhac P, Millett N, Hottelart K (2015) Thinking intuitive driving automation. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road Vehicle Automation 2, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luchian E (2015) Cambot, The Real Star in Las Vegas, January 2015.
  26. 26.
    Hoff KA, Bashir M (2015) Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum Factors 57(3):407–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diederichs F, Bischoff S, Widlroither H, Reilhac P, Hottelart K, Moizard J (2015) New HMI concept for an intuitive automated driving experience and enhanced transitions. In: 7th conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular interactions 2015 workshop proceedings, 2015Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Constine J, Nest’s CEO calls its tech the “conscious home” because “it’s not smarter than you”. Accessed Nov 2014
  29. 29.
    Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Banbury S, Raja Parasuraman R (2013) Engineering psychology & human performance 382Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Waytz A, Heafner J, Epley N (2014) The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J Exp Soc Psychol 52:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbHBietigheim-BissingenGermany
  2. 2.NMA Branding and Management ConsultancyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations