Transport Manuscript Draft Manuscript Number: TRAN-D-08-00019 Title: The measurement and modelling of proximal safety measures Article

Type: Paper Abstract: Abstract Safety in the traffic system is often measured by the number and severity of traffic crashes. This long-standing approach has established the use of crash data as an accepted measure of the lack of safety. There is, however, a distinct need for faster, more informative, and more resource effective methods that yield valid and reliable safety measures and a foundation for predictive modelling. This paper is primarily concerned with traffic safety assessment and prediction based on proximal safety indicators and associated measurement techniques. It reviews the concepts and methods related to three different proximal safety indicators: Time-to-Accident, Time-toCollision and Post-Encroachment-Time. It shows how they can be measured using field data. Similar measures can also be obtained from simulation modelling. The use of simulation models for measuring and predicting intersection safety offers considerable potential for proactive safety analysis.

Main Text Click here to download Main Text: Measuring traffic conflict T intersecction 110408b text.doc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The measurement and modelling of proximal safety measures

Jeffrey Archer BE, Phd, Senior Research Scientist Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 3800

William Young BE, MSc, MBA, Phd, Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Building 60, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 3800. Phn +61 3 9905 4949 Fax +61 3 9905 4944 E-mail Bill.Young@eng.monash.edu.au

Date written 11/5/08 Word Count 4883 words (Including table numbers, excluding figures) Tables 6 Figures 14 Key Words: Traffic, Safety, Modelling

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Abstract
Safety in the traffic system is often measured by the number and severity of traffic crashes. This long-standing approach has established the use of crash data as an accepted measure of the lack of safety. There is, however, a distinct need for faster, more informative, and more resource effective methods that yield valid and reliable safety measures and a foundation for predictive modelling. This paper is primarily concerned with traffic safety assessment and prediction based on proximal safety indicators and associated measurement techniques. It reviews the concepts and methods related to three different proximal safety indicators: Timeto-Accident, Time-to-Collision and Post-Encroachment-Time. It shows how they can be measured using field data. Similar measures can also be obtained from simulation modelling. The use of simulation models for measuring and predicting intersection safety offers considerable potential for proactive safety analysis.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Introduction
Safety in the traffic system is often measured by the number and severity of traffic crashes. This traditional and long-standing approach has established the use of crash data as an accepted measure of the lack of safety. Statistical crash data has proved useful for a wide range of purposes in the traffic engineering field. These include the identification of crash black-spots and problems associated with particular types of facilities or different groups of road-users. There is, however, a distinct need for faster, more informative, and more resource effective methods that yield valid and reliable safety measures and a foundation for predictive modelling. An effective safety assessment strategy involves the use proximal safety indicators that represent the temporal and spatial proximity of unsafe interactions and near-crashes. The main advantage of proximal measures is their resource-effectiveness given that they occur more frequently than crashes and require relatively short periods of observation to establish statistically reliable results. Proximal safety indicators are particularly useful in before-andafter studies where there is an emphasis on the assessment and comparison of safety enhancement measures at specific traffic facilities. The methodologies used to collect safety indicator data also make the results sensitive to the site-specific elements of roadway design and the dynamic and complex relationships among different traffic variables. The paper presents three proximal safety indicators then outlines their measurement using field data collection and micro-simulation modelling.

Proximal safety indicator concepts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The existence of a safety continuum (Figure 1) is regarded as a prerequisite for most proximal safety indicators suggesting the existence of safe interactions or undisturbed passages at one end and accidents with outcomes of varying severity at the other. This conceptualisation is useful for traffic safety research, providing connectivity between the bottom-up approaches to traffic safety found in the behavioural sciences, and the macroscopic (top-down) perspective of traffic safety as representing crash frequency and severity. This relationship has been described in many different models, such as that shown in Figure 21. Proximal safety indicators are defined as measures of crash proximity, based on the temporal and/or spatial measures that reflect the closeness of road-users to a projected point of collision. This section presents three different proximal safety indicators: Time-to-Accident, the Timeto-Collision and Post-Encroachment-Time. Time-to-Accident The Traffic Conflict Technique (TCT) has its origins in the research conducted at the Detroit General Motors laboratory2. The approach adopted was to observe and record unsafe interactions between vehicles, determined by the use of evasive action to avoid a potential collision3. Researchers proceeded with conflict experiments to establish definitions and methods for conflict measurement and analysis4. The Swedish Traffic Conflict Technique refined this approach, developing it to its present level of refinement5. It defines a conflict as: An observable situation in which two or more road-users approach each other in time and space to such an extent that there is risk of collision if their movements remain unchanged. 6 One proximal measure is the Time-to-Accident (TTA). It is determined at a point in time and space when evasive action is first taken. This value is calculated using estimations of speed and distance made by trained conflict observers. Figure 3 shows the calculation of TTA for a typical conflict situation. The conflict situation is defined at the point in time where the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

right-of-way vehicle begins to brake in order to a avoid collision with a duty-to-yield vehicle that has accepted a time-gap that is too short. As the TTA is based on the point at which evasive action is taken, this measure does not consider reaction-time. In order for the TTA-measure to be valid, a collision course or action must be established between conflicting road-users speeds and distances at the point where and when evasive action is first taken by either party5. On the basis of the TTA-value and the speed of the determining road-user, a conflict event is categorised as serious or non-serious in accordance with a non-linear function that takes into consideration the average rate of deceleration needed to avoid a collision at different speeds and a standard friction coefficient5. Thus, for the purposes of determining severity, speedproximity, time-proximity and deceleration power are all considered. It should also be noted that for predictive and comparative purposes only, the conflicts classified as serious are considered. An illustration of the function separating serious and non-serious conflicts is illustrated in Figure 4. It is considered useful to establish a statistical distribution of the conflicts so that the proportion of critical situations are not merely counted but also derived mathematically. Chin and Quek 3 suggest that the conflict measures recorded can be used to derive a probability function representing generalised conflict severity as shown in Figure 5. Using a suitable threshold, the proportion of critical conflict events from such a distribution can be determined by the size of the area under the conflict curve beyond a severity threshold value. This function can be used to derive the probability of a conflict occurring that is greater than a predetermined severity threshold. The actual severity scale used is dependent on the main intentions and purpose of the conflict study, which should also dictate the choice of conflict definition and the measurement technique applied.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The actual outcome severity of a crash is directly related to the impact force or kinetic energy of the colliding objects. Thus, conflict situations with close crash proximity levels but relatively low speed may indicate a high accident risk level but a low risk for personal injury. Generally, higher speed is related to higher risk for injury and fatality. For this reason it is useful to use values of speed, or acceleration, in order to establish levels of severity. In the Traffic Conflict Technique, speed is used to distinguish serious and non-serious conflicts in accordance with a function based on the amount of required deceleration needed to avoid a collision and the level of friction between the vehicle and roadway. In the commonly used Time-to-Accident Speed graph (Figures 4) the severity level of the individual conflicts is not easily interpreted, and is represented by the perpendicular distance from the line that distinguishes serious and non-serious conflicts. This distance is however, proportional to speed rather than the average deceleration required to avoid a collision, and therefore the seriousness of conflicts may be underrepresented. The required braking rate (RBR) to bring a vehicle from the point of evading a collision to a stop before a collision provides another method of measuring the severity of a crash. Figure 6 illustrates the application of this measure. For comparative purposes, the function uses to distinguish serious from non-serious conflicts is also included in Figure 6. Time-to-Conflict Another proximal safety indicator is Time-to-Collision (TTC). TTC is regarded as a more objectively determined measure of crash proximity than Time-to-Accident. This particular indicator was originally suggested by Hayward7 who described TTC: the time that remains until a collision between two vehicles would have occurred if the collision course and speed difference are maintained.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Typically, the actual TTC-value used is representative of the minimum Time-to-Collision recorded during the entire safety critical event. The general TTC definition implies that the reaction time of the road-user is also considered, which in some cases may be important with regard to the intention and purpose of a safety study3. A prerequisite concerns establishing the existence of a collision course. When a collision course is determined, the TTC-value becomes finite and decreases with increasing crash proximity. In safety studies based on the use of TTC, a suitable threshold level must be determined in order to distinguish between serious or relevant safety critical events, and those events that are not of interest. The threshold is dependent on measures related to speed, deceleration and vehicle-roadway friction. The severity of a particular TTC-event is implicitly represented by the time-value derived from measures of speed and distance. This implies that all minimum TTC-values of, for example, 1.00 second are regarded as having an equal level of severity. This is irrespective of the speed used in the calculation. Figure 7 shows two typical conflict situation and the calculation of Time-to-Collision. Post-Encroachment-Time Another variation of the Time-to-Collision concept is Post-Encroachment Time (PET). This measure is used to measure situations in which two road-users that are not on a collision course, pass over a common spatial point or area with a temporal difference that is below a threshold. The main difference between PET and TTC is the absence of the collision course criterion. PETs are easier to extract using photometric analysis than TTC as no relative speed and distance data is needed. The measure represents the difference in time between the passage of the offended and conflicted road-users over a common conflict zone. This makes PET not

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

only a useful objective measure, but also one that is less resource-demanding than TTC with regard to data-extraction process. The calculation of PET is illustrated in Figures 8. This example indicates the position of the two vehicles involved in the safety critical event at the start and end of the PET-measurement.

The field measurement of proximal safety indicators

The previous discussion has introduced three common safety indicators. This section illustrates the field measurement of these indicators. Full details of the study are presented in Archer (2005). An unsignalised T-junctions was chosen (Figure 9). It was yield-regulated with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. Traffic Measurements were made at the T-junction for morning, off- and afternoon peak periods. In total 18 hours of data was collected over three days. This represented 4 hours of each peak flow and 10 hours of off-peak flow. Measurement included video-film (Figure 9) recording using digital video cameras mounted on a 15 metre high mast. Traditional vehicle logging using pneumatic tubes was also carried out. Loop counters were placed on the priority road lanes at various distances from the intersection stop line. The vehicle log-data complement the video-analysis data and ensure correct speed calibration could be undertaken. Conflict observation in accordance with Traffic Conflict Technique5 was carried out at the Tjunction. The layout of passage lines that were used for collecting vehicle and road-user passage data using the semi-automatic video analysis software is shown in Figure 9. The layout of these lines enables most types of data to be collected. These included: traffic flow rates; origindestination; traffic composition; average speed and standard deviation of speeds for priority directions; numbers of speed violations; free-flow speed distribution data for priority

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

directions; vehicle arrival (time-gap) distribution data for priority directions; numbers of vehicles in car-following mode; gap-acceptance (time-gap) and gap-rejection distribution data for all manoeuvres; and safety data (TTA TTC and PET). A general principle for the main video analysis was to use a standard layout of virtual line markings and to input all road-user passages during each of the periods studied. This work entailed matching the passage of each road-user to a point nearest virtual line marking by moving the video-film forward and backwards. The most difficult accepted gaps to quantify were those involving left-turns into the outer priority stream. This is because there are steams of traffic to consider and a potential secondary yield point. This situation does not present a problem with regard to the registration of rejected gaps. All accepted time-gaps were registered in relation to the point in time when the yielding vehicle crossed the yield line. Furthermore, the size of the time-gap is calculated on the estimated time of arrival at a point perpendicular to the yielding position. The maximum threshold value for the Time-to-Collision safety indicator was set to 3.50. This value represents a compromise between the 3 and 4 second threshold values suggested by Minderhoud and Bovy8. The PET maximum threshold is set to a value of 1.5 seconds. This is slightly higher than the threshold value suggested by Hydn5 to distinguish between severe and non-severe PETs. To enable comparison between the safety critical events recorded by the different indicator measures, a conflict type classification was adopted (Figure 10). Time-to-Accident Table 1 shows the frequency and severity of observed conflicts in relation to conflict type for the study for Time-to-Accident conflicts. The overall conflicts are also presented in Figure 4. Only a small number of serious conflicts (18) were found at the T-junction even though the speed levels and traffic flows were relatively high. A look at the different type of safety critical

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

events showed that the left-turn manoeuvre from the secondary road was over-represented (61%) in the serious conflict data. The remainder of the conflicts (39%) involved rightturning vehicles from the secondary road in conflict with vehicles approaching from the left on the inner priority lane (conflict type 4). It was also shown that both types of merging manoeuvres into priority streams (conflict types 3 and 4) result more frequently in conflicts than transversal crossing-type manoeuvres. The RBR severity measure showed the same order as the serious conflict frequency data. Time-to-Collision Table 2 shows the Time-to-Collision data derived from the video analysis in relation to each time-period and conflict type. The left-turn manoeuvre from the secondary road was once again found to be an underlying cause of many TTCs (36%). TTC-events involving right-turning vehicles from the secondary road in conflict with vehicles on the inner priority lane (conflict type 4), are frequent at this Tjunction (64%). The results emphasise the problems in relation to left and right-turn merging manoeuvres (conflict type 3 and 4). The frequencies of TTCs among the three different timeperiods at the T-junctions followed a pattern that is consistent with relative changes in volumes of traffic9. The average RBR-severity rates per TTC-event differ from those of the TTA values for various conflicts. This is because the severity level increases after evasive action is first taken and indicates a fundamental difference between the TTA and TTC concepts. Post-Encroachment-Time Table 3 shows the frequency and severity data in relation to the PET proximal safety indicator. The problems associated with left-turning vehicles (83 % of conflicts) from the secondary road are again highlighted.

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Measures of safety using a simulation model

Each of the three safety indicators and their associated measurement techniques can also be applied in safety studies using micro-simulation modeling9,10,11,12.. One reason for using this type of modelling is to highlight the potential effects of changes in the infrastructure design, levels of traffic flow and / or speed13. In this section this approach is discussed using the example introduced above. Archer9 presents full details of the modelling outlining the type and quality of data required for a simulation approach to safety assessment, and how probabilistic gap acceptance based on empirical data could be modelled. It should be noted that there are a number of important differences in the way in which conflicts are determined in the simulation model, and the way in which they are observed in field studies. In the simulation model, conflicts always require a collision course, whereas the TCT requires road-user behaviour suggesting a collision course. This is an important difference. Further, the TCT defines conflicts at the point where and when evasive action is taken. In the simulation model, the behaviour of road-users is greatly simplified and therefore the defining point was determined where and when the level of deceleration started, provided that it decreased continually thereafter, and reached a level under -1.50 metres/second. Time-to-Accident A comparison of the frequencies and severities of simulated and observed TTA events for the different conflict types and time-period scenarios is shown in Table 4. The original real-world frequency and severity values for each time period were transformed to match the simulation time periods to provide representative values for each of the two hour time scenarios.

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Based on the empirical data, it is possible to estimate confidence intervals around the average numbers of serious conflicts expected during the simulation for each two-hour period. Using the Poisson assumption, and a 90 per cent level of confidence, it would be expected to find at least 4 and at most 10 serious conflicts per simulation run given the average of 6.60 simulated serious conflicts per 6-hour period. Similarly, the probability of obtaining less than 3 serious conflicts (2.85 are shown in Table 4) for a single run is only 4 per cent. This would suggest that the aggregated number of serious conflicts from the simulation runs is underestimated. Comparisons can also be made with regard to the conflict types. The simulation model runs indicated a similar pattern among the different types of conflict types. Conflict type 2 was represented in the simulation data for the morning peak but not the afternoon peak, whereas the opposite pattern was found for the observed data. Conflict types 1 and 3 relating to left-turn manoeuvres from the secondary road appear to be represented in the simulation data for morning and afternoon peak periods, and follow the pattern suggested by the observed data. This is also the case for conflict type 4. The standard conflict diagram is shown Figure 11 for all simulated runs. The severity of traffic conflicts is also shown below in Figure 12 using the RBR severity measure. Statistics in relation to the severity scale indicate that only 20 per cent of all conflict situations involve a required braking rate in excess of 2.00 m/sec2. The vast majority of conflict situations in the simulation model are resolved at an early point in time through controlled reaction and normal braking. Time-to-Conflict A comparison of the frequency and severities of simulated and observed Time-to-Collision events, according to the predetermined conflict types is shown below in Table 5.

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

A 90 per cent confidence interval suggested that at least 23, and at most 34, sub-threshold TTC-events per simulation run, would be expected given the observed average of 27 for the six-hour period. The simulated value of 28.40 is within this range indicating that the total number of sub-threshold TTC-events found in the simulation run matches the number of observed real-world events quite well. The standard deviation found among 60 simulation runs (5.33) was also found to be very similar to that estimated from the observed data using the Poisson assumption (5.20). The simulated sub-threshold TTC frequencies for morning (10.45) and afternoon (17.50) peak periods were also well within 90 per cent confidence intervals calculated using observed frequency values. The number of sub-threshold TTC-events occurring during the off-peak period (0.45) are underestimated, as they were for serious TTA conflicts. The RBR severity measures also indicated a good level of agreement for the entire 6-hour period, but were considerably more inconsistent for each individual time-period. Figure 14 shows the average RBR severity levels for all Time-to-Collision events generated during the simulation runs for each time-period scenario. An average severity level per TTC-event was calculated using the simulated data. A comparison with the corresponding value for the observed data showed that the average severity level from the simulation runs (mean -2.03 m/sec2, standard deviation 1.94) was lower than that for the observed data (-2.97 m/sec2). This difference is partly explained by the higher level of variation in the simulated data as suggested by the relative size of the standard deviation (1.94 m/sec2) in comparison to the mean (-2.03 m/sec2). The simulated RBR severity statistics indicate that 80 per cent of all TTC-events result in an average required braking rate less than 2.00 m/sec2. This is consistent with the Time-toAccident data and suggests that most safety critical events in the simulation model are

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

resolved at an early point through controlled reaction and normal braking in a similar manner to interactive events in real-world situations. Post-Encroachment-Time Table 6 shows a comparison of the frequency and severities of simulated and observed PostEncroachment Time (PET) events. The PET proximal safety indicator is not suitable for measuring safety critical events where the road-users involved have the same trajectory. As a result, no PET events for conflict types 3 and 4 appear in the data. A 90 per cent confidence interval suggested that at least 8 and at most 17 PET events per simulation run would be expected given an average of 12 for the 6-hour period. The total number of PET events, found for the simulated data (16.1) matches the number of observed real-world events given the extent of the confidence interval. The standard deviation found among the 60 simulation runs (3.05) is also similar to that estimated from the observed data using the Poisson assumption (3.46). The simulated PET frequencies for each separate 2-hour time-period also fall within the 90 per cent confidence intervals calculated for observed frequency values. The simulated average PET frequency for the off-peak period shows a good match against the observed data. The RBR severity levels for simulated sub-threshold PET events during the simulation runs for each time-period scenario are shown in Figure 14. The 1.50-second threshold level used for determining serious PET events at different speed levels is clearly noticeable in the diagram by the lack of non-serious PET-notations over and above the speed-threshold boundary.

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Conclusions
This paper is primarily concerned with traffic safety assessment and prediction based on proximal safety indicators and their associated measurement techniques. It reviews the concepts and methods related to three different proximal safety indicators: Time-to-Accident, Time-to-Collision and Post-Encroachment-Time. It shows how they can be measured using field data. Similar measures can also be obtained from simulation modelling. The paper indicated that simulation models for measuring and predicting intersection safety offers a fast, informative, and resource effective method of safety analysis that yields valid and reliable safety measures. Proximal measures particularly offer a foundation for predictive modelling. This paper is one small step towards the development of practical easy to use simulation models for safety analyses. The potential offered is considerable and effort is required in expanding the methodologies discussed here.

References
1. VON KLEBELSBERG, D. Die Bedeutung von subjektiver und objektiver Sicherheit; Fahrerverhalten als Risikoverhalten. Verkehrssicherheit; Vortrge anlsslich des Seminars der Forschungsgruppe Berlin, Daimler-Benz AG, Stuttgart, Germany, 1982. 2. PERKINS, S.R., and HARRIS, J.I.. Criteria for Traffic Conflict Characteristics. Report GMR632, Warren, MI, General Motors Corporation, 1967. 3. CHIN, H.C., and QUEK, S.T.. Measurement of Traffic Conflicts, Safety Science, 1997, 26(3), 169187

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

4. GRAYSON, G.B., HYDN, C., KRAAY, J.H., MUHLRAD, N and OPPE, S. The Malm Study. A Calibration of Traffic Conflict Techniques. Institute for Road safety research (SWOV), Leidschendam, 1984. 5. HYDN, C. (1987). The Development of a Method for Traffic Safety Evaluation: The Swedish Traffic Conflicts Technique. Bulletin 70, Dept. of Traffic Planning and Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 1987. 6. AMUNDSEN, F., and HYDN, C., (1977). Proceedings of First Workshop on Traffic Conflicts, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway, 1977. 7. HAYWARD, J., (1972). Near miss determination through use of a scale of danger. Report No. TTSC 7715, Pennsylvania State University, Penn., USA, 1972. 8. MINDERHOUD, M. M., and BOVY, P. H. L., (2001) Extended Time-to-Collision Measures for Road Traffic Safety Assessment, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2001, 33, 89-97. 9. ARCHER, J. (2005) Indicators for traffic safety assessment and prediction and their application in micro-simulation modelling: A study of urban and suburban intersections, Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2005 10. BONSALL, P., LIU, R. and YOUNG, W. (2005). Modelling safety-related driver behavior-Impact of parameter values. Transportation Research, 2005, 39A, 425-444. 11. CUNTO, F. and SACCOMANNO, F. (2008). Microlevel traffic simulation methods for assessing crash potential at intersections. Presented at Transport Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, 2008. 12. GETTMAN, D. and HEAD, L. (2003). Surrogate safety measures from traffic simulation models. Transportation Research Record, 2003, 1840, 104-115. 13. YOUNG, W., TAYLOR, M.A.P. and GIPPS, P.G. (1989). Microcomputers in traffic engineering. Research Studies Press, Taunton, England.

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

17

Figure

The measurement and modelling of proximal safety measures

Jeffrey Archer BE, Phd, Senior Research Scientist Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 3800

William Young BE, MSc, MBA, Phd, Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Building 60, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 3800. Phn +61 3 9905 4949 Fax +61 3 9905 4944 E-mail Bill.Young@eng.monash.edu.au

Date written 11/5/08 Word Count 4883 words (Including table numbers, excluding figures) Tables 6 Figures 14 Key Words: Traffic, Safety, Modelling

Figure 1

The safety pyramid according to Hydn5.

Figure 2

Traffic safety and the relationship between errors, standard behaviour, traffic conflicts and accidents

Figure 3

Example of a conflict situation and the calculation of Time-to-Accident (Right Hand Drive)

Figure 4

Distinguishing between serious and non-serious conflict events in accordance with the Traffic Conflict Technique.

Figure 5

Distribution of conflict events indicating probability for critical situations 3

Figure 6

Representation of conflict severity as required braking rate

Figure 7

Example of a conflict situation and the calculation of Time-to-Collision (Right Hand Drive)

Figure 8

Example of the calculation of a Post-Encroachment-Time (Right Hand Drive)

Figure 9

Principle layout of vehicle passage lines for recording data at the Tintersection in the semi-automatic video analysis software (Right Hand Drive)

Figure 10 Classification of conflict types (Right Hand Drive)

Figure 11 All simulated serious traffic conflicts

Figure 12 Severity of all simulated traffic conflicts

Figure 13 Severity of simulated Time-to-Collision events defined by requiredbraking-rate

Figure 14 Severity of simulated Post-Encroachment-Time events

10

Table Click here to download Table: Measuring traffic conflict T intersecction 110408b tables.doc

The measurement and modelling of proximal safety measures

Jeffrey Archer BE, Phd, Senior Research Scientist Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 3800

William Young BE, MSc, MBA, Phd, Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Building 60, Monash University, Victoria, Australia, 3800. Phn +61 3 9905 4949 Fax +61 3 9905 4944 E-mail Bill.Young@eng.monash.edu.au

Date written 11/5/08 Word Count 4883 words (Including table numbers, excluding figures) Tables 6 Figures 14 Key Words: Traffic, Safety, Modelling

Table 1

Frequency and severity of observed serious conflicts (TTA-values)

Mrn. Peak OffPeak Aftn Peak Tot No RBR Svr (m/sec2)*

1. 2. 3. 4. Total Hourly Rate

1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 1 (0) 4 (1) 1.0

3 (2) 0 (1) 1 (1) 4 (0) 8 (4) 0.8

1 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 2 (1) 6 (1) 1.5

5 (2) 1 (1) 5 (2) 7 (1) 18 (6) 1.0

23.4 4.0 22.9 35.4 26.9

( ) non-serious conflict *RBR is the average of all severe conflicts ** Data collected for 4 hrs in peaks and 10 hours off-peak

Table 2

Frequency and severity of TTC-events determined from video-analysis by time-period and conflict type
Mrn. Pk* OffPk* Aftn Pk* Tot No RBR Svr** (m/sec2)

2. 3. 4. Total Hourly Rate

2 2 3 8 4.0

0 0 2 2 1.0

3 3 12 18 9.0

5 5 17 28 4.7

14.0 11.9 56.7 40.5

*Data presented for average 2 hour time periods

**RBR is the average of all severe conflicts

Table 3

Frequency and severity of PET-events determined from video-analysis shown in accordance with time-period and conflict type
Mrn. Pk* OffPk* Aftn Pk* Tot No RBR Svr** (m/sec2)

1. 2. 5. Total Hourly Rate

2 0 0 2 1.0

1 0 0 1 0.5

3 4 2 9 4.5

6 4 2 12 2.0

32.0 16.0 1.3 21.5

*Data presented for 2 hour time periods **RBR is the average of all severe conflicts

Table 4

Comparison of simulated and observed Time-to-Accident data by conflict

Simulated Conflicts (per 2 hour time period) TimePeriod Conflict Type 1 2 Morning Peak 3 4 Total 1 2 Off-Peak 3 4 Total 1 2 Afternoon Peak 3 4 5 Total Total (6 hour period) NonSerious 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.60 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.45 1.65 0.05 2.15 4.55 RBR Severit y 0.19 2.02 6.92 0.50 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 2.59 0.00 2.12 0.18 2.53 2.38 3.92 Observed Conflicts (per average 2 hour time period) Serious 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.50 2.00 0.60 0.00 0.20 0.80 1.60 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 6.60 NonSerious 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.80 RBR Severit y 2.03 0.00 3.56 3.01 3.04 3.03 0.00 0.90 3.91 0.67 2.10 1.99 5.63 4.92 0.00 4.19 1.89

Serious 0.05 0.20 1.05 0.05 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.55 0.00 0.30 0.05 0.55 1.45 2.85

Table 5

Comparison of simulated and observed Time-to-Collision data by conflict type

Simulated TTCs TimePeriod Conflict Type 1 2 Morning Peak 3 4 Total 1 2 Off-Peak 3 4 Total 1 2 Afternoo n Peak 3 4 5 Total Total (6 hour period) No of TTCs 0.05 2.00 6.95 1.45 10.45 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.15 0.45 0.60 0.40 1.80 13.85 0.85 17.50 28.40 RBR Severit y 0.20 19.56 18.30 2.66 16.28 0.00 0.50 0.44 0.28 0.39 2.36 4.00 4.89 19.92 4.39 16.65 16.26 Observed TTCs No of TTCs 0.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 0.00 18.00 27.00 RBR Severity 0.00 2.67 4.63 9.60 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.32 7.32 0.00 11.33 7.34 39.81 0.00 29.65 21.91

Table 6

Comparison of simulated and observed Post-Encroachment Time data by conflict type

Simulated PETs TimePeriod Conflict Type 1 2 Morning Peak 5 Total 1 Off-Peak 2 Total 1 Afternoon Peak 2 5 Total Total (6 hour period) No of PETs 0.25 2.85 0.05 3.15 0.00 1.15 1.15 1.40 4.10 6.30 11.80 16.10 RBR Severit y 0.79 4.16 0.11 2.82 0.00 1.56 1.56 2.84 5.33 13.15 9.20 7.61 Observed PETs No of PETs 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 9.00 12.00 RBR Severity 9.74 0.00 0.00 9.74 9.62 0.00 9.62 12.60 16.03 1.30 11.61 11.13