Assesses the impacts of automated vehicles on traffic and urban sustainability, highlighting human-factor challenges.
The transition to automated vehicles (AVs) introduces complex human factors and system-level challenges across Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Levels 0–5, with profound implications for the long-term viability of future transport infrastructure. Drawing on a synthesis of socio-technical, cognitive, and behavioural adaptation theories, this study develops an integrated framework to analyse the evolving relationships among driving automation, human behaviour, system risks, and urban sustainability. The findings demonstrate that human-factor risks are inherently nonlinear, meaning they do not decrease proportionally as technology advances; instead, risk profiles peak significantly at intermediate automation levels (SAE 2–3) due to supervisory fatigue and delayed takeovers, introducing severe traffic flow volatility and localised micro-congestion that directly compromise the environmental efficiency of sustainable transport systems. As these risks reconfigure into institutional and digital infrastructure dependencies at higher levels (SAE 4–5), the primary constraint shifts toward network readiness. Through an analysis of real-world AV deployment case studies and a structured narrative literature review, this paper identifies critical operational discontinuities and mixed-traffic complexities that threaten urban grid resilience. This study proposes a conceptual framework that translates these cross-level socio-technical insights into actionable deployment pathways, providing policymakers with adaptive governance models, transportation planners with mixed-traffic management strategies aimed at preserving network efficiency, infrastructure agencies with physical and digital readiness criteria for long-term asset sustainability, and AV developers with human–machine interface optimisation frameworks to secure human-centric safety within sustainable smart city networks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Das et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: