A systematic review of traffic conflict-based safety measures with a focus on application context

IF 12.5 1区 工程技术 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ashutosh Arun , Md. Mazharul Haque , Simon Washington , Tarek Sayed , Fred Mannering
{"title":"A systematic review of traffic conflict-based safety measures with a focus on application context","authors":"Ashutosh Arun ,&nbsp;Md. Mazharul Haque ,&nbsp;Simon Washington ,&nbsp;Tarek Sayed ,&nbsp;Fred Mannering","doi":"10.1016/j.amar.2021.100185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Relative to safety assessment using data from observed crashes, conflict-based road safety assessment can potentially provide additional insights into crash causation processes. Despite numerous review studies on this topic, the application context of conflict measures has been generally overlooked. This study conducts a systematic review of conflict-based safety measures with a specific focus on the context of their applications. This study employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines of systematic review and meta-analysis to review conflict measures used for the safety assessment of intersections over the past ten years (2010–19). A total of 386 studies are systematically reviewed to identify conflict measures used for various contexts, including intersection types, traffic operating conditions, study types, and the purpose of the study.</p><p>The systematic review indicates that temporal proximity measures, specifically time-to-collision and post-encroachment time, are the most widely used conflict measures regardless of the application context. Other families of conflict measures such as spatial proximity, kinematic, mixed and combinations of measures have also been applied depending on the context. Using the extracted data from relevant studies, linear regression models were developed for time-to-collision and post-encroachment time thresholds at signalized intersections and time-to-collision thresholds at unsignalized intersections. The thresholds are found to be associated with traffic environment types, sources of conflict data and the application purpose of conflict measures. The findings of this study identify several critical gaps in the literature that can help guide future research directions in the conflict-based safety assessment of transport facilities. Critical gaps include the scarcity of validation studies for conflict measures, the lack of suitable techniques to estimate crash risk by severity types, the primary focus on signalized intersections (leaving studies of other facility types underrepresented), and the lack of suitable conflict measures for vulnerable road users.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47520,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Methods in Accident Research","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 100185"},"PeriodicalIF":12.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.amar.2021.100185","citationCount":"55","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Methods in Accident Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213665721000294","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

Abstract

Relative to safety assessment using data from observed crashes, conflict-based road safety assessment can potentially provide additional insights into crash causation processes. Despite numerous review studies on this topic, the application context of conflict measures has been generally overlooked. This study conducts a systematic review of conflict-based safety measures with a specific focus on the context of their applications. This study employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines of systematic review and meta-analysis to review conflict measures used for the safety assessment of intersections over the past ten years (2010–19). A total of 386 studies are systematically reviewed to identify conflict measures used for various contexts, including intersection types, traffic operating conditions, study types, and the purpose of the study.

The systematic review indicates that temporal proximity measures, specifically time-to-collision and post-encroachment time, are the most widely used conflict measures regardless of the application context. Other families of conflict measures such as spatial proximity, kinematic, mixed and combinations of measures have also been applied depending on the context. Using the extracted data from relevant studies, linear regression models were developed for time-to-collision and post-encroachment time thresholds at signalized intersections and time-to-collision thresholds at unsignalized intersections. The thresholds are found to be associated with traffic environment types, sources of conflict data and the application purpose of conflict measures. The findings of this study identify several critical gaps in the literature that can help guide future research directions in the conflict-based safety assessment of transport facilities. Critical gaps include the scarcity of validation studies for conflict measures, the lack of suitable techniques to estimate crash risk by severity types, the primary focus on signalized intersections (leaving studies of other facility types underrepresented), and the lack of suitable conflict measures for vulnerable road users.

基于交通冲突的安全措施的系统回顾,重点是应用环境
与使用观察到的碰撞数据进行安全评估相比,基于冲突的道路安全评估可能为碰撞原因过程提供额外的见解。尽管对这一主题进行了大量的回顾研究,但冲突措施的应用背景通常被忽视。本研究对基于冲突的安全措施进行了系统回顾,并特别关注其应用的背景。本研究采用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对过去十年(2010-19)用于十字路口安全评价的冲突测量方法进行了回顾。对386项研究进行了系统的分析,确定了十字路口类型、交通运行状况、研究类型、研究目的等不同情况下使用的冲突措施。系统回顾表明,时间接近度量,特别是碰撞时间和入侵后时间,是最广泛使用的冲突度量。其他类冲突措施,如空间接近、运动、混合和组合措施,也根据具体情况加以应用。利用相关研究提取的数据,建立了信号交叉口碰撞时间阈值和入侵后时间阈值以及无信号交叉口碰撞时间阈值的线性回归模型。发现阈值与交通环境类型、冲突数据来源和冲突措施的应用目的有关。本研究的发现确定了文献中的几个关键空白,可以帮助指导未来基于冲突的交通设施安全评估的研究方向。关键的差距包括冲突措施验证研究的缺乏,缺乏按严重类型估计碰撞风险的适当技术,主要关注信号交叉口(使其他设施类型的研究代表性不足),以及缺乏针对弱势道路使用者的适当冲突措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.10
自引率
34.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: Analytic Methods in Accident Research is a journal that publishes articles related to the development and application of advanced statistical and econometric methods in studying vehicle crashes and other accidents. The journal aims to demonstrate how these innovative approaches can provide new insights into the factors influencing the occurrence and severity of accidents, thereby offering guidance for implementing appropriate preventive measures. While the journal primarily focuses on the analytic approach, it also accepts articles covering various aspects of transportation safety (such as road, pedestrian, air, rail, and water safety), construction safety, and other areas where human behavior, machine failures, or system failures lead to property damage or bodily harm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信