**6. Conclusion**

The effect of the presence of the ADAS was relevant since, for instance, it was capable to halve the percentage of collisions. Similarly, some of the other parameters that were examined showed clear advantages of using such device, as *ttCA1*, *ttCA2*, actual degree of emergency and speed at collision. Parameters as *tA2* − *tA1* and *t*max − *tA2*, instead, showed that the presence of the ADAS could not prevent a slower execution of the required actions, perhaps caused by the anticipated perception of danger, so that sometimes it seemed that the driver was not capable of fully exploiting the advantages allowed by ADAS. In such cases, the use of further auto‐ mation as autonomous braking or emergency brake assist (helping applying and maintaining the correct pressure on the brakes, already used by several manufacturers) will certainly help. As regards the comparison between the different ADAS modes (scenarios B, C and D), the conclusions are less straightforward. Scenarios B and C have the same alert mode (a beep with increasing frequency), but in the latter it starts one second later. Consequently, in scenario C, time to collision is significantly lower, as well as *t*max − *tA2*, but no significant difference was identified as regards the other parameters, though always better. The advantage of an early alert seems, as expected, evident, and the risk of increasing the frequency of false positive in the attempt of anticipating the issue of the alarm must be carefully evaluated. As regards scenario D, in which a luminous rectangle framing the pedestrian was added to the same configuration of scenario C, no significant difference was noted, though all the drivers declared to have seen it but not everyone remembered to have heard the acoustic signal. Further experimentation and deeper comprehension is certainly necessary.
