Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations for Risk Assessment of Connection Loss Fallback Strategies

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Immediate braking to a standstill after connection loss is not a safe default: in urban following scenarios it yields rear-end collision rates that reach 86 percent at 2.5-second driver reaction times.

desk verdict A transparent simulation study that makes a real point about remote-driving fallback risk, but the abstract overstates the rates and the no-steering assumption likely makes them upper bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10243 v1 pith:KSN5ERVM submitted 2025-02-14 eess.SY cs.SY

Leon Johann Brettin , Niklas Braun , Robert Graubohm , Markus Maurer This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords remotedrivingteleoperationfallbackstrategyconnectionlossrear-endcollisionsafetyoftheintendedfunctionalitynaturalisticdatariskassessment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper targets a common design default in remote driving: when the radio link to the operator is lost, the vehicle brakes immediately to a standstill. Using roughly 186,000 naturalistic urban following scenes from drone-recorded traffic, the authors simulate what the driver behind does and find high rear-end collision rates for any substantial immediate deceleration, reaching 86 percent at a 2.5-second reaction time. They argue this makes the fallback a safety-of-the-intended-functionality (SOTIF) hazard under ISO 21448, and they flag the lack of published safety analyses as a blind spot. If this is right, developers and regulators should not treat emergency stopping as an automatically acceptable failure response.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fallback strategy of immediate braking to a standstill on connection loss. The analysis rests on a simulation pipeline over the uniD naturalistic driving dataset, which supplies real urban following scenarios (a lead and a following vehicle with observed speeds, positions, and headings). Two longitudinal driver models generate the follower's response: the intelligent driver model (IDM) with fixed-time reaction delay, and a sudden braking model that applies constant maximum deceleration after a reaction time. The lead vehicle is made to brake with deceleration -3.41 m/s² (or half that for a moderate fallback), collisions are detected as position/length overlap, and the risk interpretation is carried by the ISO 26262 definition of risk (probability times severity) combined with the ISO 21448 hazardous-event model for the intended functionality.

What would settle it

Observe what real drivers do when the vehicle ahead suddenly brakes to a standstill in urban traffic: if most steer around it while braking, the longitudinal-only collision rates in this paper are upper bounds, and the quantitative 'high probability' claim weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 'brake to a standstill' as a connection-loss fallback is not inherently safe: in urban traffic, a human driver following a remote-driven vehicle cannot anticipate the loss, and when the lead vehicle applies naturalistic emergency deceleration (about 3.41 m/s²) after the link drops, the following driver's reaction time and stopping distance are often insufficient to avoid a rear-end collision. The paper demonstrates this by initializing simulations with real vehicle-following states from the uniD dataset and running two longitudinal driver models, the intelligent driver model and a sudden-braking model, across reaction times. It reports collision rates that increase sharply with reaction time, and it interprets the resulting event chain, radio loss, sudden braking, uncontrollable rear-end collision with a following vehicle, as a SOTIF-relevant hazard, with severity at least S1 and further elevated when a large truck is following. The conclusion is that the fallback strategy can be considered an inadequate specification unless it is redesigned.

Load-bearing premise

The high collision rates depend on the assumption that the driver behind only brakes after a fixed reaction time and never steers around the stopping vehicle; if real urban drivers routinely steer to avoid the stopped vehicle, the simulated rates overstate actual collision probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • System designers should not assume that immediate braking to a standstill is an acceptable failure response for remote driving in urban areas; the fallback needs its own safety argument.
  • A moderate deceleration fallback reduces rear-end collision rates, but the paper notes it increases the risk of driving into obstacles ahead and of leaving the lane, so it is not a free fix.
  • Because connection losses are likely in real radio environments, the frequency of the triggering condition must be treated as a safety-relevant input at the concept phase.
  • Safety analyses of remote-driving fallbacks should explicitly consider vehicles behind the remote-driven vehicle, not only the free corridor in front.
  • Regulators and standards bodies should expect quantitative evidence from naturalistic scenes or equivalent before accepting a brake-to-stop fallback.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the same hazard may apply to any automated vehicle that performs an unannounced emergency stop, since the following driver's inability to anticipate the stop is the core problem, not remote operation itself.
  • Editorial inference: because the simulation ignores lateral evasion, the high rates are likely upper bounds on collision probability; the qualitative SOTIF hazard could persist even with evasion, as not all drivers can steer in every urban geometry.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the fixed reaction-time values with a realistic reaction-time distribution would turn the point collision rates into a probability distribution, giving safety engineers a more direct input for risk acceptance arguments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper examines the common fallback strategy of immediately braking to a standstill when a remote-driven vehicle loses its communication link. The authors extract following-vehicle scenes from the naturalistic uniD dataset (~186,000 start scenes), simulate longitudinal two-vehicle dynamics with an intelligent driver model and a sudden-braking model, and report collision rates as a function of reaction time and deceleration magnitude. They then interpret the results within an ISO 21448 SOTIF framework, arguing that the sudden deceleration is an insufficiency of specification and that the hazardous event is not controllable by the following driver. The paper concludes that the braking-to-standstill fallback can create a SOTIF-relevant hazard, particularly in urban settings, and that this constitutes a 'safety blind spot' in current remote-driving concepts.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely important and under-studied safety question: what happens behind a remote-driven vehicle when it brakes to a stop after connection loss. Its strengths are transparency and reproducibility: the simulation uses a public dataset, externally sourced driver-model parameters, and an explicit reaction-time sensitivity sweep. The qualitative conclusion—that an unannounced, large deceleration of the lead vehicle creates a rear-end collision hazard—is robust across both driver models and across the tested deceleration values. If the quantitative rates are taken as conditional upper bounds, the paper makes a persuasive case that this fallback strategy deserves explicit attention in safety analyses. The main weakness is that the abstract and conclusion generalize beyond what the simulation supports, particularly with respect to the role of reaction time and the exclusion of lateral evasion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Tables 2 and 3] The abstract states that the simulation indicates 'high collision rates for any immediate substantial deceleration to a standstill in urban settings.' This is contradicted by the paper's own results: for a reaction time of 0.5 s the collision rate is 0.92% (Table 2) for the emergency deceleration and 0.01% (Table 3) for the moderate deceleration; for 0.0 s it is 0.03% in Table 2. The collision rate is strongly reaction-time-dependent, ranging from 0.03% to 86.09%. The claim of 'high' rates for 'any' deceleration therefore overstates the findings; the abstract should be revised to state the parameter ranges and the dependence on reaction time.
  2. [Section V-D; Section VI-A, Fig. 4] The simulation restricts the following vehicle to longitudinal braking only: Section V-D states 'we do not simulate lateral guidance and focus on longitudinal braking.' This is not a harmless scope restriction for the central 'not controllable' conclusion in Section VI-A and Fig. 4. The preprocessing (Section V-B, step 5) explicitly discards pairs with other road users 'directly alongside or between the pairing,' so the retained start scenes disproportionately have clear lateral space beside the pair. In real urban driving, a following driver can often steer as well as brake to avoid a decelerating lead vehicle; the simulation therefore estimates collision rates conditional on a driver who never steers. To support the SOTIF argument, the authors should either add a minimal lateral-evasion model (e.g., a swerve maneuver after the same reaction time) or explicitly reframe the results as upper-bound estimates and discuss how lateral evasion would affect the controllability classification.
  3. [Section V-C; Section V-B] The collision rate is computed as 'the sum of the scenarios with a collision divided by all scenarios we preprocessed' over approximately 186,000 start scenes. These start scenes are individual frames extracted from continuous vehicle trajectories and are therefore highly correlated: consecutive frames from the same vehicle pair do not constitute independent observations. Reporting a single rate without confidence intervals or a per-encounter analysis overstates the statistical precision of the result. The authors should report uncertainties (e.g., bootstrap or cluster by trajectory) or at least clearly state that the numbers are scenario-frame frequencies, not independent-event probabilities.
  4. [Abstract; Section V-C] The abstract says the simulation is based on 'hundreds of scenarios,' while Section V-C states that the preprocessing yields 'a total of ∼ 186000' start scenes. This is a large discrepancy. If the authors intend 'hundreds' to refer to the parameter combinations or scenario families, this should be stated precisely; otherwise the abstract should say 'thousands of start scenes' (or the actual number). As written, the numbers are inconsistent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A, Table 1] In Table 1, the parameter d is labeled 'Length of the vehicle' and is also used in equation (2) as the distance between vehicles; this dual use of d is confusing and should be disambiguated (e.g., use L for vehicle length).
  2. [Section V-E] The bullet point commenting on the 0.0 s reaction-time case says 'there is still one vehicle combination with 63 starting scenes in the dataset that would lead to a collision'; it would be helpful to specify which vehicle type combination and why the follower is faster than the leader in those scenes.
  3. [Section VI-A] In Fig. 4, the chain from 'Hazardous Behavior' to 'Hazard' to 'Hazardous Event' uses '&' symbols without a legend; a brief explanation of the model notation (e.g., that all conjuncts must hold) would improve readability.
  4. [Section V-A] The term 'naturalistic emergency deceleration' for 3.41 m/s² may be misleading, as the cited source [47] reports a value used in standards, not necessarily a naturalistic emergency value; consider renaming it to 'commonly assumed deceleration' or similar.
  5. [Section V-E] The sentence 'With such a high probability of a rear-end collision' appears directly after reporting a range from 0.03% to 86.09%; the wording should reflect the strong dependence on reaction time and deceleration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the collision-rate results are produced by an externally parameterized simulation on naturalistic data, with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that braking-to-standstill on radio loss yields high rear-end collision rates in urban following scenes—is obtained by simulating longitudinal driver models (IDM [6] and a sudden-braking model) initialized from roughly 186,000 naturalistic follow pairs in the external uniD dataset. The driver parameters are taken from external literature (Treiber et al., Albeaik et al., Wood and Zhang) and reaction time is swept over externally justified values (Lee et al., AASHTO); none are fitted to the collision rates. The only author-overlapping citation used numerically, [38], supplies a 6.5 m/s2 comparison deceleration whose provenance is itself an external source [48], and the central Tables 2 and 3 do not depend on that value. The no-lateral-guidance restriction is explicitly disclosed in Section V-D and makes the numerical rates conditional on that modeling choice, but this is a validity or overstatement concern, not circularity: the simulation does not assume the target conclusion, and the SOTIF argument is explicitly framed as a plausibility check rather than a logical derivation from the fallback definition. No equation reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing self-citation chain forces the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation rests on the public uniD dataset, on literature-sourced driver model parameters, and on a longitudinal-only emergency braking setup. The deceleration magnitudes (3.41 and 1.71 m/s2) and the reaction-time sweep are the main free choices that drive the collision rates; they are not fitted to the collision data but are selected from cited sources. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'safety blind spot' is a framing concept, not an entity.

free parameters (4)
  • Lead vehicle emergency deceleration = -3.41 m/s2 (naturalistic), -1.71 m/s2 (moderate)
    Chosen from Wood and Zhang [47] as a naturalistic emergency deceleration; the moderate case is half of that value. This parameter directly determines the stopping profile of the remote-driven vehicle and thus the collision rate.
  • Following vehicle deceleration = -3.41 m/s2
    The human-driven following vehicle brakes with this naturalistic deceleration after reaction time; from Wood and Zhang [47]. It bounds the collision-avoidance capability of the follower.
  • Reaction time tau_r = 0.0-2.5 s in 0.5 s steps (swept)
    The collision rate is strongly sensitive to this parameter; the paper does not fit a distribution but treats it as a free sweep, with 2.0-2.5 s justified via Lee [30] and AASHTO [53].
  • IDM parameters (a, b, T, s0, delta) = 0.73 m/s2, -1.67 m/s2, 1.6 s, 2 m, 4
    Taken from Albeaik et al. [46] as typical and meaningful values; these shape the IDM follower behavior, while the sudden braking model gives similar results at short reaction times.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The uniD dataset provides valid naturalistic initial conditions for urban following scenarios on a straight road.
    The paper initializes all simulations from uniD trajectories (Section V-B); if the dataset is unrepresentative of urban following traffic, the collision rates do not generalize.
  • domain assumption A human driver's response to sudden braking is adequately represented by a fixed reaction time followed by constant deceleration, or by the IDM with the chosen parameters.
    Invoked in Section V-A and V-D; the authors acknowledge this is a simplification and that human behavior in emergencies is a separate research topic.
  • domain assumption No lateral evasive maneuvers are performed by the following driver; the problem is purely longitudinal.
    Stated in Section V-D limitations and Section V-A setup; if drivers can steer around the stopping vehicle, collision rates would be lower.
  • domain assumption The fallback triggers instantaneous braking at the moment of connection loss, with no transition or degraded-mode delay.
    The simulation starts with the lead vehicle braking at t=0 (Section V-C); real systems may have detection delays or staged braking.
  • domain assumption ISO 21448 and ISO 26262 definitions of risk and SOTIF apply to remote-driving design decisions.
    Used in Section VI to classify the hazard as SOTIF-relevant; the standards themselves are not derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations for Risk Assessment of Connection Loss Fallback Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSN5ERVM

@misc{pith2026250210243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations for Risk Assessment of Connection Loss Fallback Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSN5ERVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10243}
}
read the original abstract

As part of the overall goal of driverless road vehicles, remote driving is a major emerging field of research of its own. Current remote driving concepts for public road traffic often establish a fallback strategy of immediate braking to a standstill in the event of a connection loss. This may seem like the most logical option when human control of the vehicle is lost. However, our simulation results from hundreds of scenarios based on naturalistic traffic scenes indicate high collision rates for any immediate substantial deceleration to a standstill in urban settings. We show that such a fallback strategy can result in a SOTIF relevant hazard, making it questionable whether such a design decision can be considered acceptable. Therefore, from a safety perspective, we would call this problem a safety blind spot, as safety analyses in this regard seem to be very rare. In this article, we first present a simulation on a naturalistic dataset that shows a high probability of collision in the described case. Second, we discuss the severity of the resulting potential rear-end collisions and provide an even more severe example by including a large commercial vehicle in the potential collision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    German Federal Ministry of Justice, ‘‘Gesetz zur Änderung des Straßenverkehrsgesetzes und des Pflichtversicherungsgesetzes – Gesetz zum autonomen Fahren,’’ Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.), Part 1, no. 48, pp. 3108–3114, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    BSI Flex 1886 – System aspects for remote operation of vehicles – Guide, OCLC: 9970697212, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Kelkar, K

    A. Kelkar, K. Heineke, and M. Kellner, ‘‘Remote-driving services: The next disruption in mobility innovation,’’ 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Research Needs in Teleoperation

    WG Research Needs in Teleoperation, ‘‘Technical report of the working group “Research Needs in Teleoperation”,’’ Federal High- way Res. Inst., Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, Tech. Rep. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Road V ehicles - Functional Safety , Int. Org. Standardization Stan- dard ISO 26262, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Treiber, A

    M. Treiber, A. Hennecke, and D. Helbing, ‘‘Congested Traffic States in Empirical Observations and Microscopic Simulations,’’ Physical Review E , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 1805–1824, 2000. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevE.62.1805

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Krajewski, J

    R. Krajewski, J. Bock, L. Kloeker, and L. Eckstein, ‘‘The highD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Naturalistic V ehicle Trajectories on German Highways for V alidation of Highly Automated Driving Systems,’’ in 2018 21st Int. Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst. (ITSC) , Maui, HI: IEEE, pp. 2118–2125. DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569552

    work page arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    J. Bock, R. Krajewski, T. Moers, S. Runde, L. V ater, and L. Eckstein, ‘‘The inD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Naturalistic Road User Trajectories at German Intersections,’’ arXiv:1911.07602 [cs, eess], arXiv, 2019

    arXiv 1911

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Krajewski, T

    R. Krajewski, T. Moers, J. Bock, L. V ater, and L. Eckstein, ‘‘The rounD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Road User Trajectories at Roundabouts in Germany,’’ in 2020 IEEE 23rd Int. Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst. (ITSC), Rhodes, Greece: IEEE, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/ ITSC45102.2020.9294728

    2020

  2. [10]

    Moers, L

    T. Moers, L. V ater, R. Krajewski, J. Bock, A. Zlocki, and L. Eckstein, ‘‘The exiD Dataset: A Real-World Trajectory Dataset of Highly Interactive Highway Scenarios in Germany,’’ in 2022 IEEE Intell. V eh. Symp. (IV), Aachen, Germany: IEEE, pp. 958–964. DOI: 10 . 1109/IV51971.2...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Road V ehicles - Safety of the Intended Functionality, Int. Org. Stan- dardization Standard ISO 21448, 2022. VOLUME XX, 2025 11 Brettin et al.: Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations for Risk Assessment of Connection Loss Fallback Strategies

    2022

  4. [12]

    A. F. Winfield, ‘‘Future Directions in Tele-operated Robotics,’’ p. 17, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Standard J3016, 2021

    Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor V ehicles , SAE Int. Standard J3016, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Majstorovic, S

    D. Majstorovic, S. Hoffmann, F. Pfab, A. Schimpe, M.-M. Wolf, and F. Diermeyer, Survey on Teleoperation Concepts for Automated V ehicles, arXiv:2208.08876 [cs], 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Koopman, A

    P . Koopman, A. Kane, and J. Black, ‘‘Credible Autonomy Safety Argumentation,’’ 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Zhang, ‘‘Toward Automated V ehicle Teleoperation: Vision, Op- portunities, and Challenges,’’ IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol

    T. Zhang, ‘‘Toward Automated V ehicle Teleoperation: Vision, Op- portunities, and Challenges,’’ IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 11 347–11 354, 2020. DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2020. 3028766

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Sheridan and W

    T. Sheridan and W. Ferrell, ‘‘Remote Manipulative Control with Transmission Delay,’’IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Elec- tronics, vol. HFE-4, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 1963. DOI: 10.1109/THFE. 1963.231283

    1963

  10. [18]

    J. P . Luck, P . L. McDermott, L. Allender, and D. C. Russell, ‘‘An investigation of real world control of robotic assets under commu- nication latency,’’ in Proc. 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference Human-robot interaction, Salt Lake City Utah USA: ACM, 2006, pp. 202–209. DOI: 1...

    2006

  11. [19]

    J. Y . C. Chen, E. C. Haas, and M. J. Barnes, ‘‘Human Performance Issues and User Interface Design for Teleoperated Robots,’’ IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applica- tions and Reviews) , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1231–1245, 2007. DOI: 10. 1109/TSMCC.2007.905819

    2007

  12. [20]

    Davis, C

    J. Davis, C. Smyth, and K. McDowell, ‘‘The Effects of Time Lag on Driving Performance and a Possible Mitigation,’’IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 590–593, 2010. DOI: 10.1109/TRO. 2010.2046695

    2010

  13. [21]

    Gnatzig, F

    S. Gnatzig, F. Chucholowski, T. Tang, and M. Lienkamp, ‘‘A System Design for Teleoperated Road V ehicles:’’ in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Inform. Control, Automat. Robot. , Reykjavík, Iceland: SciTePress - Sci. and Technol. Publications, 2013, pp. 231–238. DOI: 10.5220/ 0004475802310238

    2013

  14. [22]

    Bodell and E

    O. Bodell and E. Gulliksson, ‘‘Teleoperation of Autonomous V ehicle With 360° Camera Feedback,’’ M.S. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    R. Liu, D. Kwak, S. Devarakonda, K. Bekris, and L. Iftode, ‘‘Inves- tigating Remote Driving over the LTE Network,’’ in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Automot. User Interfaces Interactive V eh. Appl. , Oldenburg Germany: ACM, 2017, pp. 264–269. DOI: 10 . 1145 / 3122986 . 3123008

    2017

  16. [24]

    J. S. Kay and C. E. Thorpe, ‘‘Operator Interface Design Issues in a Low-Bandwidth and High-Latency V ehicle Teleoperation System,’’ 1995, p. 951 485. DOI: 10.4271/951485

    1995 doi

  17. [25]

    Neumeier and C

    S. Neumeier and C. Facchi, ‘‘Towards a Driver Support System for Teleoperated Driving,’’ in 2019 IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Conf. (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand: IEEE, pp. 4190–4196. DOI: 10 . 1109/ITSC.2019.8917244

    2019

  18. [26]

    Georg, J

    J.-M. Georg, J. Feiler, S. Hoffmann, and F. Diermeyer, ‘‘Sensor and Actuator Latency during Teleoperation of Automated V ehicles,’’ in 2020 IEEE Intell. V eh. Symp. (IV) , Las V egas, NV , USA: IEEE, pp. 760–766. DOI: 10.1109/IV47402.2020.9304802

    2020

  19. [27]

    T. Tang, P . V etter, S. Finkl, K. Figel, and M. Lienkamp, ‘‘Tele- operated Road V ehicles – The ’’Free Corridor’’ as a Safety Strat- egy Approach,’’ Applied Mechanics and Materials , vol. 490-491, pp. 1399–1409, 2014. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.490- 491.1399

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    D. F. Diermeyer, S. Gnatzig, F. Chucholowski, T. Tang, and D. M. Lienkamp, ‘‘Der Mensch als Sensor - Der Weg zum teleoperierten Fahren,’’ Conference: AAET - Automatisierungssysteme, Assisten- zsysteme und eingebettete Systeme für Transportmittel , p. 16, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Hoffmann, D

    S. Hoffmann, D. Majstorovic, and F. Diermeyer, ‘‘Safe Corridor: A Trajectory-Based Safety Concept for Teleoperated Road V ehicles,’’ in 2022 Int. Conf. Connected V eh. Expo (ICCVE), Lakeland, Florida, USA: IEEE, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/ICCVE52871.2022.9742770

    2022

  22. [30]

    S. E. Lee, E. Llaneras, S. Klauer, and J. Sudweeks, ‘‘Analyses of Rear-End Crashes and Near-Crashes in the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study to Support Rear-Signaling Countermeasure Devel- opment,’’ Nat. Highway Traffic Saf. Admin., Springfield, Virginia, USA, Tech. Rep. DOT ...

    2007

  23. [31]

    Distner, M

    M. Distner, M. Bengtsson, T. Broberg, and L. Jakobsson, ‘‘A System Addressing Rear-End Collisions at Low Speeds,’’ 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Avery and A

    M. Avery and A. Weekes, ‘‘V olvo City Safety – Collision Avoidance Technology and its Potential to reduce Whiplash Injuries,’’ Munich, Germany, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Beyerer et al., ‘‘General Fail-Safe Emergency Stopping for Highly Automated V ehicles,’’ Lehrstuhl für Fahrzeugtechnik with TÜV SÜD Akademie, 2019

    J. Beyerer et al., ‘‘General Fail-Safe Emergency Stopping for Highly Automated V ehicles,’’ Lehrstuhl für Fahrzeugtechnik with TÜV SÜD Akademie, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    J. P . A. Heck, ‘‘Grundlagen für ein bordautonomes Hand- lungskonzept zur Unfallfolgenminderung im Querverkehr,’’ Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Färber and M

    B. Färber and M. Maurer, ‘‘Nutzer- und Nutzen-Parameter von Collision Warning und Collision Mitigation Systemen,’’ Walting, Germany: Maurer, M.; Stiller, C., 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Certad, S

    N. Certad, S. Tschernuth, and C. Olaverri-Monreal, ‘‘Extraction of Road Users Behavior from Realistic Data According to Assumptions in Safety-Related Models for Automated Driving Systems,’’ Bilbao, Spain, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    IEEE Standard for Assumptions in Safety-Related Models for Auto- mated Driving Systems, IEEE Standard IEEE STD 2846-2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Graubohm, N

    R. Graubohm, N. F. Salem, M. Nolte, and M. Maurer, ‘‘On Assump- tions with Respect to Occlusions in Urban Environments for Auto- mated V ehicle Speed Decisions,’’ 2023. DOI: 10 . 1109 / itsc57777 . 2023.10422457

    2023

  31. [39]

    E. Shi, T. M. Gasser, A. Seeck, and R. Auerswald, ‘‘The Principles of Operation Framework: A Comprehensive Classification Concept for Automated Driving Functions,’’ SAE International Journal of Con- nected and Automated V ehicles, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 12–03–01–0003,

  32. [40]

    Shi and T

    E. Shi and T. M. Gasser, ‘‘Classification of automated driving functions,’’ in Handbook Assisted Automated Driving , H. Winner, K. C. J. Dietmayer, L. Eckstein, M. Jipp, M. Maurer, and C. Stiller, Eds., Springer, 2025, to be published

    2025

  33. [41]

    A. Reschka, ‘‘Fertigkeiten- und Fähigkeitengraphen als Grund- lage des sicheren Betriebs von automatisierten Fahrzeugen im öf- fentlichen Straßenverkehr in städtischer Umgebung,’’ Ph.D. disser- tation, Technische Universität Braunschweig, 2017. DOI: 10.24355/ DBBS.084-201707280929

    2017

  34. [42]

    Rep., 2009

    ‘‘Daimler Geschäftsbericht 2009,’’ Stuttgart, Germany, Tech. Rep., 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    von Holt and D

    V . von Holt and D. M. Maurer, ‘‘Aktive Sicherheitssysteme mit maschineller Wahrnehmung - Anforderungen, Potentiale und Ein- führungshemmnisse,’’ Technische Universität München, Ed., Mu- nich, Germany, 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    Rieken, A

    J. Rieken, A. Reschka, and M. Maurer, ‘‘Development Process of Forward Collision Prevention Systems,’’ in Handbook Driver As- sistance Syst. Springer Int. Publishing, 2016, pp. 1177–1206. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-12352-3

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    UN Regulation No 152 – Uniform provisions concerning the ap- proval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking System (AEBS) for M1 and N1 vehicles [2020/1597] , 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Albeaik et al

    S. Albeaik et al. , Limitations and Improvements of the Intelligent Driver Model (IDM), arXiv:2104.02583 [cs, eess], 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. S. Wood and S. Zhang, ‘‘Evaluating Relationships between Perception-Reaction Times, Emergency Deceleration Rates, and Crash Outcomes using Naturalistic Driving Data,’’ Transporta- tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2675, no. 1, pp. 213–...

    2021

  40. [48]

    V angi and A

    D. V angi and A. Virga, ‘‘Evaluation of emergency braking decelera- tion for accident reconstruction,’’ V ehicle System Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 895–910, 2007. DOI: 10.1080/00423110701538320

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    F orward V ehicle Collision Mitigation Systems Operation, Perfor- mance, and V erification Requirements , Int. Org. Standardization Standard ISO 22839, 2013

    2013

  42. [50]

    Stolte, L

    T. Stolte, L. Qiu, and M. Maurer, ‘‘Reference Trajectories for Inves- tigating Fault-Tolerant Trajectory Tracking Control Algorithms for Automated V ehicles,’’IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 40– 47, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.09.007

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    S. P . Deligianni, M. Quddus, A. Morris, A. Anvuur, and S. Reed, ‘‘Analyzing and Modeling Drivers’ Deceleration Behavior from Normal Driving,’’ Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 12 VOLUME XX, 2025 Brettin et al.: Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations...

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Ulbrich, T

    S. Ulbrich, T. Menzel, A. Reschka, F. Schuldt, and M. Maurer, ‘‘Defining and Substantiating the Terms Scene, Situation, and Sce- nario for Automated Driving,’’ in 2015 IEEE 18th Int. Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst., Gran Canaria, Spain: IEEE, pp. 982–988. DOI: 10 . 1109/ITSC.2015.164

    2015

  45. [53]

    Washington DC, USA, 2018

    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi- cials, Ed., A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets , 7th Edition. Washington DC, USA, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    Standard J2980, 2023

    (R) Considerations for ISO 26262 ASIL Hazard Classification, SAE Int. Standard J2980, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    ISO, ‘‘Road vehicles — Safety and cybersecurity for automated driving systems — Design, verification and validation,’’ Int. Org. Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, Tech. Rep. ISO/TR 4804, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    High- way Traffic Saf

    National Center for Statistics and Analysis, ‘‘Traffic safety facts 2021: A compilation of motor vehicle traffic crash data,’’ Nat. High- way Traffic Saf. Admin., Tech. Rep. DOT HS 813 527, 2023

    2021

  49. [57]

    Evans and M

    L. Evans and M. C. Frick, ‘‘Mass ratio and relative driver fatality risk in two-vehicle crashes,’’ Accident Analysis & Prevention , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 213–224, 1993. DOI: 10.1016/0001-4575(93)90062-2

    1993 doi

  50. [58]

    Stigson, A

    H. Stigson, A. Ydenius, and A. Kullgren, ‘‘V ariation of Crash Sever- ity and Injury Risk Depending on Collisions with Different V ehicle Types and Objects,’’ Madrid, Spain, 2006

    2006

  51. [59]

    M. Chen, P . Chen, X. Gao, and C. Y ang, ‘‘Examining injury severity in truck-involved collisions using a cumulative link mixed model,’’ Journal of Transport & Health , vol. 19, p. 100 942, 2020. DOI: 10. 1016/j.jth.2020.100942

    2020

  52. [60]

    Liu and W

    P . Liu and W. Fan, ‘‘Analyzing injury severity of rear-end crashes involving large trucks using a mixed logit model: A case study in North Carolina,’’ Journal of Transportation Safety & Security , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 723–736, 2022. DOI: 10.1080/19439962.2020. 1812784

    2022

  53. [61]

    D. U. Erbulut, ‘‘Biomechanics of neck injuries resulting from rear- end vehicle collisions,’’Turkish Neurosurgery, vol. 24, pp. 466–470,

  54. [62]

    R. J. Y ang, N. Wang, C. H. . Tho, J. P . Bobineau, and B. P . Wang, ‘‘Metamodeling Development for V ehicle Frontal Impact Simula- tion,’’Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 1014–1020,

  55. [63]

    Kostek and P

    R. Kostek and P . Aleksandrowicz, ‘‘Simulation of car collision with an impact block,’’ IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 252, p. 012 008, 2017. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/ 252/1/012008

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    M. L. Cummings, ‘‘Assessing Readiness of Self-Driving V ehicles,’’ 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Smith, ‘‘U.S

    A. Smith, ‘‘U.S. Views of Technology and the Future,’’ Pew Res. Center, Tech. Rep., 2014

    2014

  58. [66]

    Smith and M

    A. Smith and M. Anderson, ‘‘Automation in Everyday Life,’’ Pew Res. Center, Tech. Rep., 2017

    2017

  59. [67]

    Rainie, C

    L. Rainie, C. Funk, M. Anderson, and A. Tyson, ‘‘AI and Human Enhancement: Americans’ Openness Is Tempered by a Range of Concerns,’’ Pew Res. Center, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  60. [68]

    cruise, Important Updates from Cruise , https://getcruise.com/de- DE/news/blog/2023/important- updates- from-cruise/, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    DMV Statement on Cruise LLC Suspension , https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news- and- media/dmv- statement- on-cruise-llc-suspension/, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Mathews, ‘‘In a single night, self-driving startup Cruise went from sizzling startup to cautionary tale

    J. Mathews, ‘‘In a single night, self-driving startup Cruise went from sizzling startup to cautionary tale. Here’s what really happened—and how GM is scrambling to save its $10B bet,’’ F ortune, 2024. LEON JOHANN BRETTIN received the B.Sc. de- gree in computer science from Ost...

    2017

  63. [2005]

    DOI: 10.1115/1.1906264

    doi

  64. [2014]

    DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.9218-13.1

    doi

  65. [2020]

    DOI: 10.4271/12-03-01-0003

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.