Teleoperation is considered as a viable option to control fully automated vehicles (AVs) of Level 4 and 5 in special conditions. However, by bringing the remote drivers in the loop, their driving experience should be realistic to secure safe and comfortable remote control.Therefore, the remote control tower should be designed such that remote drivers receive high quality cues regarding the vehicle state and the driving environment. In this direction, the steering feedback could be manipulated to provide feedback to the remote drivers regarding how the vehicle reacts to their commands. However, until now, it is unclear how the remote drivers' steering feel could impact occupant's motion comfort. This paper focuses on exploring how the driver feel in remote (RD) and normal driving (ND) are related with motion comfort. More specifically, different types of steering feedback controllers are applied in (a) the steering system of a Research Concept Vehicle-model E (RCV-E) and (b) the steering system of a remote control tower. An experiment was performed to assess driver feel when the RCV-E is normally and remotely driven. Subjective assessment and objective metrics are employed to assess drivers' feel and occupants' motion comfort in both remote and normal driving scenarios. The results illustrate that motion sickness and ride comfort are only affected by the steering velocity in remote driving, while throttle input variations affect them in normal driving. The results demonstrate that motion sickness and steering velocity increase both around 25$\%$ from normal to remote driving.

Motion planning is a fundamental component in automated vehicles. It influences the comfort and time efficiency of the ride. Despite a vast collection of studies working towards improving motion comfort in self-driving cars, little attention has been paid to the performance of human drivers as a baseline. In this paper, we present an experimental study conducted on a public road using an instrumented vehicle to investigate how human drivers balance comfort and time efficiency. The human driving data is compared with two optimization-based motion planners that we developed in the past. In situations when there is no difference in travel times, human drivers incurred an average of 23.5% more energy in the longitudinal and lateral acceleration signals than the motion planner that minimizes accelerations. In terms of frequency-weighted acceleration energy, an indicator correlated with the incidence of motion sickness, the average performance deficiency rises to 70.2%. Frequency-domain analysis reveals that human drivers exhibit more longitudinal oscillations in the frequency range of 0.2-1 Hz and more lateral oscillations in the frequency range of up to 0.2 Hz. This is reflected in time-domain data features such as less smooth speed profiles and higher velocities for long turns. The performance difference also partly results from several practical matters and additional factors considered by human drivers when planning and controlling vehicle motion. The driving data collected in this study provides a performance baseline for motion planning algorithms to compare with and can be further exploited to deepen the understanding of human drivers.