为什么这么严肃?-比较两种用于评估共享空间遭遇的交通冲突技术

Q3 Engineering Transactions on Transport Sciences Pub Date : 2021-01-14 DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/CZTVN
Carla Jakobowsky, F. Siebert, C. Schießl, M. Junghans, Mandy Dotzauer
{"title":"为什么这么严肃?-比较两种用于评估共享空间遭遇的交通冲突技术","authors":"Carla Jakobowsky, F. Siebert, C. Schießl, M. Junghans, Mandy Dotzauer","doi":"10.17605/OSF.IO/CZTVN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Germany, approximately 2.7 million crashes occurred in 2019. Especially vulnerable road users (VRU) have a high risk of being seriously injured or killed in traffic. Within the safe system approach, changes to the traffic infrastructure have been implemented to increase VRU safety. The creation of so-called shared spaces, in which all road users are encouraged to negotiate priority, is part of these efforts. Even though the concept has been known and applied for more than 40 years, comparatively little is known about interactions between different road users and methods to quantify interactions in shared spaces. The aim of this study is to investigate similarities and differences in quantifying the level of severity of encounters between pedestrians and motorised vehicles applying the Swedish traffic conflicts technique (STCT) and the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts analysis (PVCA). The STCT integrates the factors conflicting speed (CS) and time-to-accident (TA) to arrive at a severity level. In contrast, with four factors, the PVCA integrates more elements: time-to-collision (TTC, corresponding to TA), severity of evasive action, complexity of evasive action, and distance-to-collision (DTC). Trajectory and video data of a shared space were recorded using the Application Platform for Intelligent Mobile Units (AIM) in Ulm, Germany. 1364 interactions were randomly selected. Due to different exclusion criteria, such as interaction partners not being a car or pedestrian, missing values, and detection errors, 69 encounters were available for analyses. Using the PVCA, nine encounters were classified as critical and 60 as non-critical interactions. In contrast, computing the values based on the STCT, only three of the 69 encounters were categorised as critical. The results of a Spearman rank correlation did not show a significant correlation between the severity categories of the PVCA and severity levels of the STCT (r = 0.03, p = 0.78). An additional analysis of the encounters ranked as critical by the PVCA but as non-critical by the STCT showed that all six encounters had a large temporal distance (> 2 s) combined with very small spatial distance (< 5 m for vehicles and < 2.5 m for pedestrians). While the PVCA and STCT yielded similar results in most encounters, this could not be confirmed for all. Results indicate that spatial distance may contribute to the severity of encounters between pedestrians and vehicles in a shared space.","PeriodicalId":52273,"journal":{"name":"Transactions on Transport Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why so serious? - Comparing two traffic conflict techniques for assessing encounters in shared space\",\"authors\":\"Carla Jakobowsky, F. Siebert, C. Schießl, M. Junghans, Mandy Dotzauer\",\"doi\":\"10.17605/OSF.IO/CZTVN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Germany, approximately 2.7 million crashes occurred in 2019. Especially vulnerable road users (VRU) have a high risk of being seriously injured or killed in traffic. Within the safe system approach, changes to the traffic infrastructure have been implemented to increase VRU safety. The creation of so-called shared spaces, in which all road users are encouraged to negotiate priority, is part of these efforts. Even though the concept has been known and applied for more than 40 years, comparatively little is known about interactions between different road users and methods to quantify interactions in shared spaces. The aim of this study is to investigate similarities and differences in quantifying the level of severity of encounters between pedestrians and motorised vehicles applying the Swedish traffic conflicts technique (STCT) and the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts analysis (PVCA). The STCT integrates the factors conflicting speed (CS) and time-to-accident (TA) to arrive at a severity level. In contrast, with four factors, the PVCA integrates more elements: time-to-collision (TTC, corresponding to TA), severity of evasive action, complexity of evasive action, and distance-to-collision (DTC). Trajectory and video data of a shared space were recorded using the Application Platform for Intelligent Mobile Units (AIM) in Ulm, Germany. 1364 interactions were randomly selected. Due to different exclusion criteria, such as interaction partners not being a car or pedestrian, missing values, and detection errors, 69 encounters were available for analyses. Using the PVCA, nine encounters were classified as critical and 60 as non-critical interactions. In contrast, computing the values based on the STCT, only three of the 69 encounters were categorised as critical. The results of a Spearman rank correlation did not show a significant correlation between the severity categories of the PVCA and severity levels of the STCT (r = 0.03, p = 0.78). An additional analysis of the encounters ranked as critical by the PVCA but as non-critical by the STCT showed that all six encounters had a large temporal distance (> 2 s) combined with very small spatial distance (< 5 m for vehicles and < 2.5 m for pedestrians). While the PVCA and STCT yielded similar results in most encounters, this could not be confirmed for all. Results indicate that spatial distance may contribute to the severity of encounters between pedestrians and vehicles in a shared space.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions on Transport Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions on Transport Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CZTVN\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Engineering\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions on Transport Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CZTVN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在德国,2019年发生了大约270万起车祸。特别是脆弱的道路使用者(VRU)在交通中受到严重伤害或死亡的风险很高。在安全系统方法中,已经实施了对交通基础设施的改变,以提高VRU的安全性。创建所谓的共享空间,鼓励所有道路使用者协商优先事项,是这些努力的一部分。尽管这一概念已经被认识和应用了40多年,但相对而言,人们对不同道路使用者之间的互动以及量化共享空间中互动的方法所知甚少。本研究的目的是研究应用瑞典交通冲突技术(STCT)和行人-车辆冲突分析(PVCA)量化行人和机动车之间遭遇严重程度水平的异同。STCT综合了冲突速度(CS)和事故发生时间(TA)等因素,得出了严重程度等级。相比之下,PVCA包含了四个因素:碰撞时间(time-to-collision, TTC,对应于TA)、规避行为的严重程度、规避行为的复杂性和碰撞距离(distance-to-collision, DTC)。在德国乌尔姆,使用智能移动单元应用平台(AIM)记录共享空间的轨迹和视频数据,随机选择1364个交互。由于不同的排除标准,如互动伙伴不是汽车或行人、缺失值和检测错误,69次遭遇可用于分析。使用PVCA, 9次相遇被归类为关键,60次被归类为非关键相互作用。相比之下,根据STCT计算值,69次遭遇中只有3次被归类为关键。Spearman秩相关结果未显示PVCA的严重程度类别与STCT的严重程度之间存在显著相关性(r = 0.03, p = 0.78)。对PVCA评为关键但STCT评为非关键的碰撞进行的额外分析表明,所有六次碰撞都具有较大的时间距离(> 2秒)和非常小的空间距离(< 5米的车辆和< 2.5米的行人)。虽然PVCA和STCT在大多数遭遇中产生了相似的结果,但这并不能被全部证实。结果表明,空间距离可能会影响共享空间中行人与车辆碰撞的严重程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why so serious? - Comparing two traffic conflict techniques for assessing encounters in shared space
In Germany, approximately 2.7 million crashes occurred in 2019. Especially vulnerable road users (VRU) have a high risk of being seriously injured or killed in traffic. Within the safe system approach, changes to the traffic infrastructure have been implemented to increase VRU safety. The creation of so-called shared spaces, in which all road users are encouraged to negotiate priority, is part of these efforts. Even though the concept has been known and applied for more than 40 years, comparatively little is known about interactions between different road users and methods to quantify interactions in shared spaces. The aim of this study is to investigate similarities and differences in quantifying the level of severity of encounters between pedestrians and motorised vehicles applying the Swedish traffic conflicts technique (STCT) and the pedestrian-vehicle conflicts analysis (PVCA). The STCT integrates the factors conflicting speed (CS) and time-to-accident (TA) to arrive at a severity level. In contrast, with four factors, the PVCA integrates more elements: time-to-collision (TTC, corresponding to TA), severity of evasive action, complexity of evasive action, and distance-to-collision (DTC). Trajectory and video data of a shared space were recorded using the Application Platform for Intelligent Mobile Units (AIM) in Ulm, Germany. 1364 interactions were randomly selected. Due to different exclusion criteria, such as interaction partners not being a car or pedestrian, missing values, and detection errors, 69 encounters were available for analyses. Using the PVCA, nine encounters were classified as critical and 60 as non-critical interactions. In contrast, computing the values based on the STCT, only three of the 69 encounters were categorised as critical. The results of a Spearman rank correlation did not show a significant correlation between the severity categories of the PVCA and severity levels of the STCT (r = 0.03, p = 0.78). An additional analysis of the encounters ranked as critical by the PVCA but as non-critical by the STCT showed that all six encounters had a large temporal distance (> 2 s) combined with very small spatial distance (< 5 m for vehicles and < 2.5 m for pedestrians). While the PVCA and STCT yielded similar results in most encounters, this could not be confirmed for all. Results indicate that spatial distance may contribute to the severity of encounters between pedestrians and vehicles in a shared space.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transactions on Transport Sciences
Transactions on Transport Sciences Environmental Science-Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Shared Space Feasibility Based on Traffic-Engineering Data Exploring Lane Changing Dynamics: A Comprehensive Review of Modeling Approaches, Traffic Impacts, and Future Directions in Traffic Engineering Research Between Investment Risk and Economic Benefit: Potential Analysis for the Reactivation of the Hershey Railway in Cuba Consumer Preferences and Determinants of Transportation Mode Choice Behaviors in the Era of Autonomous Vehicles A Comprehensive Evaluation and Mitigation Approaches for Traffic-Related Noise in the Sungai Long Region, Malaysia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1