## 4 Results
### Driving Safety Evaluation  
The evaluation results are summarized in Figure 9. Since the AV drives in accordance with maneuvering control algorithms, the acceleration noise of the AV pair (1.22\({}^{-3}\) m/s\({}^{2}\)) was smaller than that of the mixed pair (7.58\({}^{-3}\) m/s\({}^{2}\)), and it was 98.8% smaller than that of the MV pair (2.75\({}^{-1}\) m/s\({}^{2}\)). The Std.LP in the AV pair (7.26\({}^{-3}\) m) decreased by 92.5% compared to the mixed pair and by 96.2% compared to the MV pair. As a result of  
Figure 8: Example of a speed profile. comparing the average headway, the average headway of the AV pair was 3.62 s, which represents the highest headway among other vehicle pairs, maintaining the widest spacing between preceding and following vehicles. The standard deviation of the headway of AV pairs is 0.10 s, which is the smallest among all vehicle pairs. Analyses of variation (ANOVA) are performed for each safety indicator separately. The statistical analysis results are presented in Table 2. Significance probabilities of acceleration noise and Std.LP are 0.00 for all car-following pairs. Significance probabilities of Avg.HW are less than 0.05 for all car-following pairs. The safety indicators, in accordance with the 24 sections, have significant differences from the other pairs at the 95% significance level. The result of the ANOVA test implies that the proposed indicators are capable of discriminately explaining the difference in driving safety among scenarios. Figure 9: Comparison of safety indicators by vehicle pair. A comparison of the evaluation index by road section is presented in Table 3. The acceleration noises in the baseline case are 0.01\({}^{-2}\) m/s\({}^{2}\) for the AV pair, 0.05 m/s\({}^{2}\) for the mixed pair, and 0.1 m/s\({}^{2}\) for the MV pair. In the AV pair, the acceleration noise in Section 5-8, 10, 12, and 18 increased the most to 0.01. In the mixed pair, the acceleration noise increased by 225% compared to the baseline in Sections 14, 22, and 24. The highest acceleration noise was observed in Section 24 in the MV pair. The lateral driving safety characterized using the Std.LP was the worst for all pairs in Section 11. Section 11 has alignment characteristics of a right-curve length of 500 m and a downhill slope of 1%. In the case of driving to the right, the sight distance of the drive was shorter in the case of the right curve than in the case of the left curve [19], so the lateral driving safety of Section 11 was the worst in all vehicle pairs. With regard to the headway, the headway of the AV pair in Section 1 was 2.67 s, which was reduced by 55% compared to the baseline. The average headway of the mixed pair was 2.23 s, which was a 44% decrease in Section 16 and 24 compared to the baseline. A 45% reduction in the average headway was observed in Section 15 with the MV pair. Furthermore, the hazardous road conditions were found to be different for the AV pair, mixed pair, and MV pair. The longitudinal safety was poor in Section 24 for the MV pair and in Sections 24 and 14 for the Mixed pair. The hazardous road section for the AV pair is entirely different from that of the MV pair and mixed pair. With regard to the inter-vehicle interaction indicators, the hazardous road sections were different for the AV pair, mixed pair, and MV pair. These results prove that the hypothesis established in this study is valid. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AV Pair**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mixed Pair**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**MV Pair**} \\ \hline  & **N** & **F** & **\(p\)-Value** & **N** & **F** & **\(p\)-Value** & **N** & **F** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline AN & 30 & 3839.59 & 0.00 & 30 & 4.25 & 0.00 & 30 & 9.94 & 0.00 \\ Std.LP & 30 & 278,083.99 & 0.00 & 30 & 3.39 & 0.00 & 30 & 14.18 & 0.00 \\ Avg.HW & 30 & 324,079.95 & 0.00 & 30 & 3.90 & 0.00 & 30 & 1.83 & 0.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of ANOVA with safety indicators.