In the original article, author affiliation published with error. The correct affiliations are: Davide Maggi—Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds, UK. Richard Romano—Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds, UK. Oliver Carsten—Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds, UK. Joost C. F. De Winter—Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. The original article has been corrected.

During the last 20 years, technological advancement and economic interests have motivated research on automated driving and its impact on drivers’ behaviour, especially after transitions of control. Indeed, once the Automated Driving System (ADS) reaches its operational limits, it is forced to request human intervention. However, the fast accumulation and massive quantity of produced studies and the gaps left behind by standards have led to an imprecise and colloquial use of terms which, as technology and research interest evolve, creates confusion. The goal of this survey is to compare how different taxonomies describe transitions of control, address the current use of widely adopted terms in the field of transitions of control and explain how their use should be standardized to enhance future research. The first outcome of this analysis is a schematic representation of the correspondence among the elements of the reviewed taxonomies. Then, the definitions of “takeover” and “handover” are clarified as two parallel processes occurring in every transition of control. A second set of qualifiers, which are necessary to unequivocally define a transition of control and identify the agent requesting the transition and the agent receiving the request (ADS or the driver), is provided. The “initiator” is defined as the agent requesting the transition to take place, and the “receiver” is defined as the agent receiving that request.