As vehicles transition toward higher levels of automation, Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS) have become essential for ensuring human oversight, safety, and regulatory compliance in a vehicle. These systems rely on multimodal sensing and AI-driven inference to assess driver attention, cognitive state, and readiness to take control. While technologically promising, their deployment introduces a complex set of ethical and legal challenges - ranging from privacy and consent to data ownership and algorithmic fairness. While overarching frameworks such as the GDPR, EU AI Act, and IEEE standards offer important guidance, they lack the specificity required for addressing the unique risks posed by in-cabin sensing technologies. This paper adopts a review-to-design perspective, critically examining existing regulatory instruments and ethical frameworks -- such as the GDPR, the EU AI Act, and IEEE guidelines -- and identifying gaps in their applicability to the distinctive risks posed by multimodal, AI-enabled in-cabin monitoring. Building on this review, we propose a modular ethical design framework tailored specifically to Driver Monitoring Systems. The framework translates high-level principles into actionable design and deployment guidance, including user-configurable consent mechanisms, fairness-aware model development, transparency and explainability tools, and safeguards for driver emotional well-being. Finally, the paper outlines a risk analysis and failure mitigation strategy, emphasizing proactive incident response and accountability mechanisms tailored to the DMS context. Together, these contributions aim to inform the development of transparent, trustworthy, and human-centered driver monitoring systems for next-generation autonomous vehicles.
Continuous driver monitoring in automated vehicles requires low-latency inference while avoiding unsafe decisions under uncertain driver states. Large vision-language models provide broad multimodal priors, but their latency and limited reliability in this setting make them unsuitable as always-on in-cabin monitors. We propose a cost-aware selective inference framework for deployable multimodal driver monitoring. The core system is a lightweight RGB-physiological student that combines in-cabin visual observations with window-level HR/EDA signals, and a learned gate that decides when to accept the fast prediction or abstain for safety intervention. Additional controls show that the learned scores contain sample-level information beyond scenario priors, while exact physiological synchronization remains a limitation. To incorporate predictive evidence, we further study a compact driver-state world modeling module that rolls out latent driver-state features and estimates future fast-model errors and counterfactual system-level action costs. On scenario-induced driver-demand recognition, the RGB-physiological student improves over RGB-only and physiology-only baselines, reaching 0.7440 Macro-F1 and 0.9099 balanced accuracy with 11.39M parameters and 3.08ms inference latency. Cost-aware selective inference reduces unsafe false negatives from 17.37% under always-fast inference to approximately 5% across seeds, while maintaining deployment-level latency. While driver-state world modeling offers valuable predictive signals, worst-group evaluations highlight persistent operating-point calibration drift. Ultimately, reliable edge driver monitoring requires advancing not only perception backbones, but also risk-aware selective control and group-robust calibration.
Autonomous driving technology has the potential to reduce the large number of road traffic accidents caused by human error each year, but it also brings new types of risks that need to be evaluated from the aspects of technology, ethics and regulations. Based on public crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), disengagement reports from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the MIT Moral Machines dataset, and a comparative regulatory analysis of five jurisdictions, we have found that the main types of technical failure modes are perception and classification errors. These account for a relatively large proportion of the reported accidents, and it can be concluded that there are different ethical frameworks for autonomous vehicle decision-making, and inconsistent regulations in different areas increase the uncertainty of widespread application. Generally speaking, the problems of technology, ethics and regulation are closely related and need to be solved together. Therefore, this paper recommends a more adaptive and cooperative governance approach that combines engineering standards, ethical discussion, and institutional supervision.
Prior studies report that partial driving automation can increase the cognitive demands on human drivers. This effect largely arises from human drivers' lack of transparent insight into the vehicle's intentions and decision logic, as well as from automated systems' limited awareness of the driver's dynamic state and preferences. This bidirectional misalignment undermines shared situational awareness and exacerbates coordination failures in human-vehicle interaction. To address these limitations, we argue for a paradigm shift that elevates the human role from passive supervisor to active manager. We introduce the Mediator-in-the-Loop-Driving (MILD) system, based on an agentic system architecture to facilitate synergistic human-vehicle collaboration. MILD integrates a perception agent for joint in-cabin and out-of-cabin understanding with a lightweight strategy agent that generates compliant and explainable action suggestions. To ensure these strategies are strictly aligned with safety regulations and human values, we develop Evidence- and Constraint-weighted Policy Optimization (ECPO). ECPO leverages automatic validators to steer the agent toward behaviors that are not only accurate but also structurally complete, substantiated by evidence, and free from constraint violations. Furthermore, a retrieval-augmented generation module dynamically incorporates constraints from traffic regulations, speed recommendations, and driver preferences into the decision loop. Field experiments across three open datasets demonstrate that MILD consistently outperforms baselines in both perception accuracy and strategy quality under auditable offline metrics, and yields higher human-rated policy adequacy, comfort, and explanation than baselines. This work offers a practical pathway for building auditable and aligned agents for human-vehicle collaborative driving.