In recent years, the use of remote operation has been proposed as a bridge towards driverless mobility by providing human assistance remotely when an automated driving system finds a situation that is ambiguous and requires input from a remote operator. The remote operation of road vehicles has also been proposed as a way to enable drivers to operate vehicles from safer and more comfortable locations. While commercial solutions for remote operation exist, remaining challenges are being tackled by research community, who is continuously testing and validating the feasibility of deploying remote operation of road vehicles on public roads. These tests range from the technological scope to the social aspects such as acceptability and usability that affect human performance. This survey presents a compilation of works that approach the remote operation of road vehicles. We start by describing the basic architecture of remote operation systems and classify their modes of operation depending on the level of human intervention. We use this classification to organize and present recent and relevant work on the field from industry and academia. Finally, we identify the challenges in the deployment of remote operation systems in the technological, regulatory, and commercial scopes.

This literature survey explores the domain of remote driving of road vehicles within autonomous vehicles, focusing on challenges and state-of-the-art solutions related to driving feedback, latency, support control, as well as remote driving platform and real applications. The advancement towards Level-5 autonomy faces challenges, including sensor reliability and diverse scenario feasibility. Currently, remote driving is identified as vital for commercialization, however, it comes with challenges like low situational awareness, latency, and a lack of comprehensive feedback mechanisms. Solutions proposed include enhancing visual feedback, developing haptic feedback, employing prediction techniques, and use control methods to support driver. This paper reviews the existing literature on remote driving in these fields, revealing research gaps and areas for future studies. Additionally, this paper reviews the industry applications of remote driving and shows the state-of-art use cases.

Wireless technology supporting vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication, allow vehicles and infrastructures to exchange information, and cooperate. Cooperation among the actors in an intelligent transport system (ITS) can introduce several benefits, for instance, increase safety, comfort, efficiency. Automation has also evolved in vehicle control and active safety functions. Combining cooperation and automation would enable more advanced functions such as automated highway merge and negotiating right-of-way in a cooperative intersection. However, the combination have influences on the structure of the overall transport systems as well as on its behaviour. In order to provide a common understanding of such systems, this paper presents an analysis of cooperative ITS (C-ITS) with regard to dimensions of cooperation. It also presents possible influence on driving behaviour and challenges in deployment and automation of C-ITS.

Platooning refers to a group of vehicles that--enabled by wireless vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication and vehicle automation--drives with short inter-vehicular distances. Before its deployment on public roads, several challenging traffic situations need to be handled. Among the challenges are cut-in situations, where a conventional vehicle--a vehicle that has no automation or V2V communication--changes lane and ends up between vehicles in a platoon. This paper presents results from a simulation study of a scenario, where a conventional vehicle, approaching from an on-ramp, merges into a platoon of five cars on a highway. We created the scenario with four platooning gaps: 15, 22.5, 30, and 42.5 meters. During the study, the conventional vehicle was driven by 37 test persons, who experienced all the platooning gaps using a driving simulator. The participants' opinions towards safety, comfort, and ease of driving between the platoon in each gap setting were also collected through a questionnaire. The results suggest that a 15-meter gap prevents most participants from cutting in, while causing potentially dangerous maneuvers and collisions when cut-in occurs. A platooning gap of at least 30 meters yield positive opinions from the participants, and facilitating more smooth cut-in maneuvers while less collisions were observed.

Purpose: This paper aims to explore whether drivers would adapt their behavior when they drive among automated vehicles (AVs) compared to driving among manually driven vehicles (MVs).Understanding behavioral adaptation of drivers when they encounter AVs is crucial for assessing impacts of AVs in mixed-traffic situations. Here, mixed-traffic situations refer to situations where AVs share the roads with existing nonautomated vehicles such as conventional MVs. Design/methodology/approach: A driving simulator study is designed to explore whether such behavioral adaptations exist. Two different driving scenarios were explored on a three-lane highway: driving on the main highway and merging from an on-ramp. For this study, 18 research participants were recruited. Findings: Behavioral adaptation can be observed in terms of car-following speed, car-following time gap, number of lane change and overall driving speed. The adaptations are dependent on the driving scenario and whether the surrounding traffic was AVs or MVs. Although significant differences in behavior were found in more than 90% of the research participants, they adapted their behavior differently, and thus, magnitude of the behavioral adaptation remains unclear. Originality/value: The observed behavioral adaptations in this paper were dependent on the driving scenario rather than the time gap between surrounding vehicles. This finding differs from previous studies, which have shown that drivers tend to adapt their behaviors with respect to the surrounding vehicles. Furthermore, the surrounding vehicles in this study are more “free flow'” compared to previous studies with a fixed formation such as platoons. Nevertheless, long-term observations are required to further support this claim.