# The Development of Teleoperated Driving to Cooperate with the Autonomous Driving Experience
## 6 Comparison with Existing Systems
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**System** & **Latency** & **Path Deviation** & **Stopping Distance** & **Fallback Response** \\ \hline Proposed 5G teleoperation (this work) & 109.7 ms avg (316.6 ms peak) (RTT + video) & 0.19–0.33 m avg (0.83 m max) & 1.42 m (baseline) \(\rightarrow\) 1.75 m (avg lat)/2.37 m (peak lat) at 3 m/s & Instant emergency braking (<0.1 s delay; autonomous) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5G-Blueprint teleoperation [23]} & 40–60 ms RTT (sub-6 GHz 5G); spikes up to \(\sim\)300 ms & N/A (not reported) & \begin{tabular}{c} N/A (project \\ demonstrated remote driving, focus on \\ latency) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Automated fail-safe \\ stop on network loss \\ (manual takeover) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Kia Soul EV 5G Pilot [24]} & 47 ms RTT; 202 ms avg & N/A (qualitatively \"accurate\" steering) & \begin{tabular}{c} +1 m braking distance \\ at 30 km/h for \(\sim\)200 ms \\ latency \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Operator takeover after \\ vehicle stops \\ (few-second \\ human reaction) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Predictive HMI teleop system [25; 26]} & Effective at 500 ms & N/A (improved \begin{tabular}{c} N/A (aimed to mask \\ subjective control) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} No physical fallback; \\ latency effects \\ on control) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} No physical fallback; \\ uses visual prediction \\ to assist operator \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Autonomous fallback (LQR braking) [33] & N/A (normal driving \(\text{only}\)) & N/A & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\sim\)Same as normal \\ (steering failure \\ scenario) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Autonomous in-lane \\ stop using \\ differential brakes \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative performance metrics of the proposed 5G-based teleoperation system versus selected existing systems (from Refs. [23; 24; 31; 33], etc.). Latency is provided as round-trip time (RTT) or glass-to-glass (G2G) delay, as reported in each study. Path deviation refers to lateral error from a reference trajectory. Stopping distance is the distance required to halt from the given speed, including any added distance due to latency. Fallback delay denotes the time to engage an emergency response or safe-stop mechanism once a triggering condition is detected. additional network impairments such as jitter, packet loss, and bandwidth degradation. While these factors were not explicitly tested in the current study, their anticipated effects have been considered based on system architecture and the prior literature. Moderate jitter is expected to have limited impact due to buffering and frame interpolation within the video transmission pipeline. For packet loss, the control link includes a watchdog mechanism that triggers a fail-safe stop if critical commands or acknowledgments are not received within a specified timeout. This ensures that intermittent losses do not result in unsafe behavior. In cases of bandwidth degradation--such as during 5G handovers or congestion--the system adapts by reducing video resolution and frame rate to maintain responsiveness, as similarly implemented in previous 5G teleoperation prototypes [23,24]. If degradation persists, the fallback controller will assume command and bring the vehicle to a controlled halt. These design provisions, though not empirically validated in this study, align with best practices in resilient teleoperation and underscore the system's ability to maintain safety even under non-ideal network conditions. In summary, the implementation demonstrates performance and safety on par with state-of-the-art 5G teleoperation systems, particularly in moderate-speed, stable network conditions. It offers reliable control, precise trajectory tracking, and immediate fallback, with opportunities for future expansion in more demanding scenarios.