English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Currently, several traffic conflict indicators are used as surrogate safety measures. Each indicator has its own advantages, limitations, and suitability. There are only a few studies focusing on fixed object conflicts of highway safety estimation using traffic conflict technique. This study investigated which conflict indicator was more suitable for traffic safety estimation based on conflict-accident Pearson correlation analysis. First, a high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicle was used to collect multiple continuous high-precision videos of the Jinan-Qingdao highway. The vehicle trajectory data outputted from recognition of the videos were used to acquire conflict data following the procedure for each conflict indicator. Then, an improved indicator Ti was proposed based on the advantages and limitations of the conventional indicators. This indicator contained definitions and calculation for three types of traffic conflicts (rear-end, lane change and with fixed object). Then the conflict-accident correlation analysis of TTC (Time to Collision)/PET (Post Encroachment Time)/DRAC (Deceleration Rate to Avoid Crash)/Ti indicators were carried out. The results show that the average value of the correlation coefficient for each indicator with different thresholds are 0.670 for TTC, 0.669 for PET, and 0.710 for DRAC, and 0.771 for Ti, which Ti indicator is obviously higher than the other three conventional indicators. The findings of this study suggest TTC often fails to identify lane change conflicts, PET indicator easily misjudges some rear-end conflict when the speed of the following vehicle is slower than the leading vehicle, and PET is less informative than other indicators. At the same time, these conventional indicators do not consider the vehicle-fixed objects conflicts. The improved Ti can overcome these shortcomings; thus, Ti has the highest correlation. More data are needed to verify and support the study.

Determining an Improved Traffic Conflict Indicator for Highway Safety Estimation Based on Vehicle Trajectory Data