Comparative Assessment of Safety Indicators for Vehicle Trajectories on Highways
Abstract
Safety measurement and its analysis have been challenging and well-researched topics in transportation. Conventionally, surrogate safety measures have been used as safety indicators in simulation models for safety assessment, in control formulations for driver assistance systems, and in data analysis of naturalistic driving studies. However, surrogate indicators give partial insights on traffic safety; that is, these indicators only indicate a predetermined set of possible precrash situations for an interacting vehicle pair. Recently, a safety indicator called the “driving safety field,” based on field theory, was proposed for two-dimensional vehicle interactions. However, the objectivity of its functional form and its validity have yet to be tested. A qualitative and quantitative comparison of different safety indicators was provided as a risk measure to demarcate their mathematical properties and evaluate their usefulness in quantifying trajectory risk. Five relevant safety indicators were compared: inverse time to collision, postencroachment time, potential indicator of collision with urgent decceleration, warning index, and safety field force. Their formulations were mathematically analyzed to yield qualitative insights and their values over simulated vehicle trajectories were evaluated to yield quantitative insights. The results acknowledge the limitations and demarcate the functional utilities of the selected safety indicators.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Global Status Report on Road Safety, 2015. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2015.
2. Archer J. Indicators for Traffic Safety Assessment and Prediction and Their Application in Micro-Simulation Modelling: A Study of Urban and Suburban Intersections. PhD dissertation. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005.
3. Azevedo C. L., and Farah H. Using Extreme Value Theory for the Prediction of Head-On Collisions During Passing Maneuvers. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, New York, 2015, pp. 268–273. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2015.53.
4. Wilmink I. R., Klunder G. A., and van Arem B. Traffic Flow Effects of Integrated Full-Range Speed Assistance (IRSA). In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, IEEE, New York, 2007, pp. 1204–1210. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2007.4290282.
5. Wang M., Hoogendoorn S. P., Daamen W., van Arem B., and Happee R. Game Theoretic Approach for Predictive Lane-Changing and Car-Following Control. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 58, 2015, pp. 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.07.009.
6. Kuang Y., Qu X., and Wang S. A Tree-Structured Crash Surrogate Measure for Freeways. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 77, 2015, pp. 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.007.
7. Kiefer R. J., Flannagan C. A., and Jerome C. J. Time-to-Collision Judgments Under Realistic Driving Conditions. Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2006, pp. 334–345. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724499.
8. Wang J., Wu J., and Li Y. The Driving Safety Field Based on Driver–Vehicle–Road Interactions. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2015, pp. 2203–2214. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2015.2401837.
9. Svensson Å. A Method for Analysing the Traffic Process in a Safety Perspective. PhD dissertation. Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, 1998.
10. Zheng L., Ismail K., and Meng X. Traffic Conflict Techniques for Road Safety Analysis: Open Questions and Some Insights. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 7, 2014, pp. 633–641. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0558.
11. Young W., Sobhani A., Lenné M. G., and Sarvi M. Simulation of Safety: A Review of the State of the Art in Road Safety Simulation Modelling. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 66, 2014, pp. 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.01.008.
12. van Beinum A., Farah H., Wegman F., and Hoogendoorn S. Critical Assessment of Methodologies for Operations and Safety Evaluations of Freeway Turbulence. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2556, 2016, pp. 39–48. https://doi.org/10.3141/2556-05.
13. Gettman D., and Head L. Surrogate Safety Measures from Traffic Simulation Models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1840, 2003, pp. 104–115. https://doi.org/10.3141/1840-12.
14. Minderhoud M. M., and Bovy P. H. L. Extended Time-to-Collision Measures for Road Traffic Safety Assessment. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2001, pp. 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00019-1.
15. Jula H., Kosmatopoulos E. B., and Ioannou P. A. Collision Avoidance Analysis for Lane Changing and Merging. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 49, No. 6, 2000, pp. 2295–2308. https://doi.org/10.1109/25.901899.
16. Damerow F., and Eggert J. Predictive Risk Maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, New York, 2014, pp. 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2014.6957772.
17. Evans L. C., and Gariepy R. F. Measure Theory and Fine Properties of Functions. Studies in Advanced Mathematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 1991.
18. Aarts L., and Van Schagen I. Driving Speed and the Risk of Road Crashes: A Review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2006, pp. 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.07.004.
19. Evans L. Driver Injury and Fatality Risk in Two-Car Crashes Versus Mass Ratio Inferred Using Newtonian Mechanics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1994, pp. 609–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)90022-1.
20. Laureshyn A., De Ceunynck T., Karlsson C., Svensson Å., and Daniels S. In Search of the Severity Dimension of Traffic Events: Extended Delta-V as a Traffic Conflict Indicator. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 98, 2017, pp. 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.09.026.
21. Othman S., and Thomson R. Influence of Road Characteristics on Traffic Safety. In Proceedings: 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009, pp. 1–10.
22. Klauer S. G., Dingus T. A., Neale V. L., Sudweeks J. D., and Ramsey D. J. The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data. Report DOT HS 810 594. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2006.
23. Moon S., Moon I., and Yi K. Design, Tuning, and Evaluation of a Full-Range Adaptive Cruise Control System with Collision Avoidance. Control Engineering Practice, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2009, pp. 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2008.09.006.
24. Fancher P., Bareket Z., and Ervin R. Human-Centered Design of an Acc-With-Braking and Forward-Crash-Warning System. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 2-3, 2001, pp. 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1076/vesd.36.2.203.3557.
25. Zheng L., Ismail K., and Meng X. Freeway Safety Estimation Using Extreme Value Theory Approaches: A Comparative Study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 62, 2014, pp. 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.006.
26. Ni D. A Unified Perspective on Traffic Flow Theory, Part 1: The Field Theory. Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 7, 2013, pp. 1929–1946.
27. Fancher P. S., and Bareket Z. Evaluating Headway Control Using Range Versus Range-Rate Relationships. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pp. 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423119408969076.
28. Hyden C. The Development of a Method for Traffic Safety Evaluation: The Swedish Traffic Conflicts Technique. Bulletin 70. Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 1987.
29. Treiber M., Hennecke A., and Helbing D. Congested Traffic States in Empirical Observations and Microscopic Simulations. Physical Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2000, pp. 1805–1824.
30. Samiee S., Azadi S., Kazemi R., and Eichberger A. Towards a Decision-Making Algorithm for Automatic Lane Change Manoeuvre Considering Traffic Dynamics. Promet – Traffic&Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2016, pp. 91–103.
31. Laurenshyn A., and Olszewski P. Review of Current Study Methods for VRU Safety. Appendix 6: Scoping Review: Surrogate Measures of Safety in Site-Based Road Traffic Observations. Deliverable 2.1–Part 4. Horizon 2020, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
32. Mullakkal-Babu F. A., Wang M., Van Arem B., and Happee R. Design and Analysis of Full Range Adaptive Cruise Control with Integrated Collision Avoidance Strategy. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, New York, 2016, pp. 308–315.
33. Wang J., Wu J., Zheng X., Ni D., and Li K. Driving Safety Field Theory Modeling and Its Application in Pre-Collision Warning System. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 72, 2016, pp. 306–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.10.003.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: January 1, 2017
Issue published: January 2017
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 218
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 31
- A two-dimensional surrogate safety measure based on fuzzy logic model
- Effect of vehicle size on crash risk in a heterogeneous traffic scenar...
- Collision-Free Merging Control Via Trajectory Optimization for Connect...
- PRISMA: A novel approach for deriving probabilistic surrogate safety m...
- Identifying risky driving behavior: a field study using instrumented v...
- Real-time driving risk assessment based on the psycho-physical field
- How certain are we that our automated driving system is safe?
- Surrogate Safety Measures: Review and Assessment in Real-World Mixed T...
- The Scanner of Heterogeneous Traffic Flow in Smart Cities by an Updati...
- Driver models for the definition of safety requirements of automated v...
- Risk Field Model of Driving and Its Application in Modeling Car-Follow...
- Internet-of-Things System to Protect Police Officers From Collisions W...
- Anticipated Collision Time (ACT): A two-dimensional surrogate safety i...
- Comparative Safety Assessment of Automated Driving Strategies at Highw...
- A Dynamic Bayesian Network Model for Real-Time Risk Propagation of Sec...
- Performance evaluation of surrogate measures of safety with naturalist...
- Safety aware fuzzy longitudinal controller for automated vehicles
- Sleep-deprived car-following: Indicators of rear-end crash potential
- A Hybrid Submicroscopic-Microscopic Traffic Flow Simulation Framework
- An Empirical Analysis to Assess the Operational Design Domain of Lane ...
- Prediction of rear-end conflict frequency using multiple-location traf...
- Modeling traffic conflicts for use in road safety analysis: A review o...
- Recognition of Vehicle Warning Indicators
- Fuzzy Surrogate Safety Metrics for real-time assessment of rear-end co...
- Crash Risk Assessment for Heterogeneity Traffic and Different Vehicle-...
- A generic multi-scale framework for microscopic traffic simulation par...
- Probabilistic field approach for motorway driving risk assessment
- A forward collision avoidance algorithm based on driver braking behavi...
- Fuzzy surrogate safety metrics
- Comparison of Traffic Conflict Indicators for Crash Estimation using P...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
