Are collision and crossing course surrogate safety indicators transferable? A probability based approach using extreme value theory.

In order to overcome the shortcomings of crash data a number of surrogate measures of safety have been developed and proposed by various researchers. One of the most widely used temporal indicators is time-to-collision (TTC) which requires the road users to be on a collision course. Road users that are strictly speaking not on a collision course actually might behave and take evasive actions as if they were, thus indicating that such near-miss situations might also be relevant for safety analysis. Taking that into account, a more flexible indicator T2, which does not require the two vehicles to be on a collision course, describes the expected time for the second road user to arrive at the conflict point. Recently extreme value theory (EVT) offering two approaches, block maxima (BM) and Peak over Threshold (POT), has been applied in combination with surrogate indicators to estimate crash probabilities. Most of this research has focused on testing BM and POT as well as validating various surrogate safety indicators by comparing model estimates to actual crash frequencies. The comparison of collision course indicators with indicators including crossing course interactions and their performance using EVT has not been investigated yet. In this study we are seeking answers to under what conditions these indicators perform better and whether they are transferable. Using data gathered at a signalized intersection focusing on left-turning and straight moving vehicle interactions our analysis concluded that the two indicators are transferable with stricter threshold values for T2 and that POT gives more reasonable results.

[1]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Validating the bivariate extreme value modeling approach for road safety estimation with different traffic conflict indicators. , 2019, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Haneen Farah,et al.  Using Extreme Value Theory for the Prediction of Head-On Collisions During Passing Maneuvres , 2015, 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[3]  Chengcheng Xu,et al.  A crash prediction method based on bivariate extreme value theory and video-based vehicle trajectory data. , 2019, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  A J Nicholson,et al.  The variability of accident counts. , 1985, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[5]  Stijn Daniels,et al.  In search of the severity dimension of traffic events: Extended Delta-V as a traffic conflict indicator. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Linjun Lu,et al.  A combined use of microscopic traffic simulation and extreme value methods for traffic safety evaluation , 2018 .

[7]  Karim Ismail,et al.  Freeway safety estimation using extreme value theory approaches: a comparative study. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Holger Rootzén,et al.  Accident Analysis and Prevention , 2013 .

[9]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[10]  Christer Hydén,et al.  Estimating the severity of safety related behaviour. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Andrew P Tarko,et al.  Use of crash surrogates and exceedance statistics to estimate road safety. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Eric Gilleland,et al.  ExtRemes 2.0: An extreme value analysis package in R , 2016 .

[13]  Nicolas Saunier,et al.  Large-scale automated proactive road safety analysis using video data , 2015 .

[14]  S. Coles,et al.  An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values , 2001 .

[15]  C. Hydén.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY EVALUATION: THE SWEDISH TRAFFIC CONFLICTS TECHNIQUE , 1987 .

[16]  Wei Wang,et al.  Identifying if VISSIM simulation model and SSAM provide reasonable estimates for field measured traffic conflicts at signalized intersections. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[17]  S. M. Sohel Mahmud,et al.  Application of proximal surrogate indicators for safety evaluation: A review of recent developments and research needs , 2017 .

[18]  Jonas Fredriksson,et al.  Comparing Collision Threat Measures for Verification of Autonomous Vehicles using Extreme Value Theory , 2016 .

[19]  C. Hydén,et al.  Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioural data: theoretical framework and first implementation. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Automated Safety Diagnosis of Vehicle–Bicycle Interactions Using Computer Vision Analysis , 2013 .

[21]  Haneen Farah,et al.  Safety analysis of passing maneuvers using extreme value theory , 2015, IATSS Research.

[22]  Helena Penalva,et al.  Topics in data analysis using R in extreme value theory , 2013, Advances in Methodology and Statistics.

[23]  John C Hayward,et al.  NEAR-MISS DETERMINATION THROUGH USE OF A SCALE OF DANGER , 1972 .

[24]  Praprut Songchitruksa,et al.  The extreme value theory approach to safety estimation. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  Ezra Hauer,et al.  Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety , 1997 .

[26]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Traffic conflict standards for intersections , 1999 .

[27]  Tarek Sayed,et al.  Bivariate extreme value modeling for road safety estimation. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.