Investigating the transition from normal driving to safety-critical scenarios

Investigation of the correlation between factors associated with crash development has enabled the implementation of methods aiming to avert and control crash causation at various points within the crash sequence (Evans, 2006). Partitioning the crash sequence is important because intricated crash causation sequences can be deconstructed and effective prevention strategies can be suggested (Wu & Thor, 2015). Towards this purpose, Tingvall et al. (2009) documented the so-called integrated safety chain which described the change of crash risk on the basis of a developing sequence of events that led to a collision. This thesis examines the crash sequence development and thus, the transition from normal driving to safety critical scenarios. [Continues.

Analysing the impacts of parking price policies with the introduction of connected and Automated Vehicles

It is known that parking prices can affect multiple characteristics such as traffic flow, delays, and congestion. Connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) do not need drivers and may return to the origin, if necessary, avoiding parking fees. However, if the destination area is not near the origin, it may not be economically viable to return. Hence, in the present study, four scenarios were tested to find the optimal parking strategy: (i) enter and park inside area (ii) enter, drop off and return to the origin (iii) enter, drop off and return to outside parking and (iv) enter and drive around. Different parking prices were used to determine the suitable option. The ‘Balanced’ scenario with multiple parking choices was found to be better compared to other scenarios, where the flow and travel distance were moderately (-19 and -26.3%) affected. Emissions were reduced significantly with CAVs

How can on-street parking regulations affect traffic, safety, and the environment in a cooperative, connected, and automated era?

On-street parking is a commonly used form of parking facility as part of transportation infrastructure. However, the emergence of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) is expected to significantly impact parking in the future. This study aims to investigate the impacts of on-street parking regulations for CAVs on the environment, safety and mobility in mixed traffic fleets. To achieve this goal, a calibrated and validated network model of the city of Leicester, UK, was selected to test the implementation of CAVs under various deployment scenarios. The results revealed that replacing on-street parking with driving lanes, cycle lanes, and public spaces can lead to better traffic performance. Specifically, there could be a 27–30% reduction in travel time, a 43–47% reduction in delays, more than 90% in emission reduction, and a 94% reduction in traffic crashes compared to the other tested measures. Conversely, replacing on-street parking with pick-up/drop-off stations may have a less significant impact due to increased stop-and-go events when vehicles pick-up and drop-off passengers, resulting in more interruptions in the flow and increased delays. The paper provides examples of interventions that can be implemented for on-street parking during a CCAM era, along with their expected impacts in order for regional decision-makers and local authorities to draw relative policies. By replacing on-street parking with more efficient traffic measures, cities can significantly improve mobility, reduce emissions, and enhance safety

Impacts of on-street parking regulations on cooperative, connected, and automated mobility: a traffic microsimulation study

This study aims to investigate the mobility impacts of on-street parking regulations for Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) under mixed traffic fleets. A calibrated and validated network model of the city of Leicester in the UK was selected to test the implementation under various deployment scenarios. The modelling results indicated that replacing on-street parking with driving lanes, cycle lanes and public spaces can potentially lead to better traffic performance (27% to 30% reduction in travel time, 43% to 47% reduction in delays) compared to the other tested measures. The less significant impact of replacement with pick-up/drop-off points is due to increased stop-and-go events while vehicles pick-up and drop-off passengers, consequently leading to more interruptions in the flow and increased delays. The paper provides examples of interventions that can be implemented for on-street parking during the implementation of CAVs for regional decision-makers and local authorities

Network-wide safety impacts of dedicated lanes for connected and Autonomous Vehicles

Cooperative, Connected and Automated Mobility (CCAM) enabled by Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) has potential to change future transport systems. The findings from previous studies suggest that these technologies will improve traffic flow, reduce travel time and delays. Furthermore, these CAVs will be safer compared to existing vehicles. As these vehicles may have the ability to travel at a higher speed and with shorter headways, it has been argued that infrastructure-based measures are required to optimise traffic flow and road user comfort. One of these measures is the use of a dedicated lane for CAVs on urban highways and arterials and constitutes the focus of this research. As the potential impact on safety is unclear, the present study aims to evaluate the safety impacts of dedicated lanes for CAVs. A calibrated and validated microsimulation model developed in AIMSUN was used to simulate and produce safety results. These results were analysed with the help of the Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM). The model includes human-driven vehicles (HDVs), 1st generation and 2nd generation autonomous vehicles (AVs) with different sets of parameters leading to different movement behaviour. The model uses a variety of cases in which a dedicated lane is provided at different type of lanes (inner and outer) of highways to understand the safety effects. The model also tries to understand the minimum required market penetration rate (MPR) of CAVs for a better movement of traffic on dedicated lanes. It was observed in the models that although at low penetration rates of CAVs (around 20%) dedicated lanes might not be advantageous, a reduction of 53% to 58% in traffic conflicts is achieved with the introduction of dedicated lanes in high CAV MPRs. In addition, traffic crashes estimated from traffic conflicts are reduced up to 48% with the CAVs. The simulation results revealed that with dedicated lane, the combination of 40-40-20 (i.e., 40% human-driven – 40% 1st generation AVs– 20% 2nd generation AVs) could be the optimum MPR for CAVs to achieve the best safety benefits. The findings in this study provide useful insight into the safety impacts of dedicated lanes for CAVs and could be used to develop a policy support tool for local authorities and practitioners

Behavioural parameters for CAVs

This document was created as part of the Levitate project. The purpose of this document is to define the Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) parameter sets for driving logics that are used in the Levitate project. The behaviour parameter sets are based on the microscopic traffic simulation software Aimsun Next (Aimsun, 2021). The assumptions on CAV parameters and their values were based on a comprehensive literature review, including both empirical and simulation-based studies (e.g., Cao et al., 2017; Eilbert et al., 2019; Goodall yet al., 2020; de Souza et al., 2021; Shladover et al., 2012), as well as discussions in meetings with experts, conducted as part of Levitate project

The European road safety decision support system. A clearinghouse of road safety risks and measures, Deliverable 8.3 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

Safety CaUsation, Benefits and Efficiency (SafetyCube) is a European Commission supported Horizon 2020 project with the objective of developing an innovative road safety Decision Support System (DSS) that will enable policy-makers and stakeholders to select and implement the most appropriate strategies, measures and cost-effective approaches to reduce casualties of all road user types and all severities. The core of the SafetyCube project is a comprehensive analysis of accident risks and the effectiveness and cost-benefit of safety measures, focusing on road users, infrastructure, vehicles and post-impace care, framed within a Safe System approach ,with road safety stakeholders at the national level, EU and beyond having involvement at all stages. The present Deliverable (8.3) outlines the methods and outputs of SafetyCube Task 8.3 - ‘Decision Support System of road safety risks and measures’. A Glossary of the SafetyCube DSS is available to the Appendix of this report. The identification and assessment of user needs for a road safety DSS was conducted on the basis of a broad stakeholders’ consultation. Dedicated stakeholder workshops yielded comments and input on the SafetyCube methodology, the structure of the DSS and identification of road safety "hot topics" for human behaviour, infrastructure and vehicles. Additionally, a review of existing decision support systems, was carried out; their functions and contents were assessed, indicating that despite their usefulness they are of relatively narrow scope.... continue

Identification of infrastructure related risk factors, Deliverable 5.1 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

The present Deliverable (D5.1) describes the identification and evaluation of infrastructure related risk factors. It outlines the results of Task 5.1 of WP5 of SafetyCube, which aimed to identify and evaluate infrastructure related risk factors and related road safety problems by (i) presenting a taxonomy of infrastructure related risks, (ii) identifying “hot topics” of concern for relevant stakeholders and (iii) evaluating the relative importance for road safety outcomes (crash risk, crash frequency and severity etc.) within the scientific literature for each identified risk factor. To help achieve this, Task 5.1 has initially exploited current knowledge (e.g. existing studies) and, where possible, existing accident data (macroscopic and in-depth) in order to identify and rank risk factors related to the road infrastructure. This information will help further on in WP5 to identify countermeasures for addressing these risk factors and finally to undertake an assessment of the effects of these countermeasures. In order to develop a comprehensive taxonomy of road infrastructure-related risks, an overview of infrastructure safety across Europe was undertaken to identify the main types of road infrastructure-related risks, using key resources and publications such as the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO), The Handbook of Road Safety Measures (Elvik et al., 2009), the iRAP toolkit and the SWOV factsheets, to name a few. The taxonomy developed contained 59 specific risk factors within 16 general risk factors, all within 10 infrastructure elements. In addition to this, stakeholder consultations in the form of a series of workshops were undertaken to prioritise risk factors (‘hot topics’) based on the feedback from the stakeholders on which risk factors they considered to be the most important or most relevant in terms of road infrastructure safety. The stakeholders who attended the workshops had a wide range of backgrounds (e.g. government, industry, research, relevant consumer organisations etc.) and a wide range of interests and knowledge. The identified ‘hot topics’ were ranked in terms of importance (i.e. which would have the greatest effect on road safety). SafetyCube analysis will put the greatest emphasis on these topics (e.g. pedestrian/cyclist safety, crossings, visibility, removing obstacles). To evaluate the scientific literature, a methodology was developed in Work Package 3 of the SafetyCube project. WP5 has applied this methodology to road infrastructure risk factors. This uniformed approach facilitated systematic searching of the scientific literature and consistent evaluation of the evidence for each risk factor. The method included a literature search strategy, a ‘coding template’ to record key data and metadata from individual studies, and guidelines for summarising the findings (Martensen et al, 2016b). The main databases used in the WP5 literature search were Scopus and TRID, with some risk factors utilising additional database searches (e.g. Google Scholar, Science Direct). Studies using crash data were considered highest priority. Where a high number of studies were found, further selection criteria were applied to ensure the best quality studies were included in the analysis (e.g. key meta-analyses, recent studies, country origin, importance). Once the most relevant studies were identified for a risk factor, each study was coded within a template developed in WP3. Information coded for each study included road system element, basic study information, road user group information, study design, measures of exposure, measures of outcomes and types of effects. The information in the coded templates will be included in the relational database developed to serve as the main source (‘back end’) of the Decision Support System (DSS) being developed for SafetyCube. Each risk factor was assigned a secondary coding partner who would carry out the control procedure and would discuss with the primary coding partner any coding issues they had found. Once all studies were coded for a risk factor, a synopsis was created, synthesising the coded studies and outlining the main findings in the form of meta-analyses (where possible) or another type of comprehensive synthesis (e.g. vote-count analysis). Each synopsis consists of three sections: a 2 page summary (including abstract, overview of effects and analysis methods); a scientific overview (short literature synthesis, overview of studies, analysis methods and analysis of the effects) and finally supporting documents (e.g. details of literature search and comparison of available studies in detail, if relevant). To enrich the background information in the synopses, in-depth accident investigation data from a number of sources across Europe (i.e. GIDAS, CARE/CADaS) was sourced. Not all risk factors could be enhanced with this data, but where it was possible, the aim was to provide further information on the type of crash scenarios typically found in collisions where specific infrastructure-related risk factors are present. If present, this data was included in the synopsis for the specific risk factor. After undertaking the literature search and coding of the studies, it was found that for some risk factors, not enough detailed studies could be found to allow a synopsis to be written. Therefore, the revised number of specific risk factors that did have a synopsis written was 37, within 7 infrastructure elements. Nevertheless, the coded studies on the remaining risk factors will be included in the database to be accessible by the interested DSS users. At the start of each synopsis, the risk factor is assigned a colour code, which indicates how important this risk factor is in terms of the amount of evidence demonstrating its impact on road safety in terms of increasing crash risk or severity. The code can either be Red (very clear increased risk), Yellow (probably risky), Grey (unclear results) or Green (probably not risky). In total, eight risk factors were given a Red code (e.g. traffic volume, traffic composition, road surface deficiencies, shoulder deficiencies, workzone length, low curve radius), twenty were given a Yellow code (e.g. secondary crashes, risks associated with road type, narrow lane or median, roadside deficiencies, type of junction, design and visibility at junctions) seven were given a Grey code (e.g. congestion, frost and snow, densely spaced junctions etc.). The specific risk factors given the red code were found to be distributed across a range of infrastructure elements, demonstrating that the greatest risk is spread across several aspects of infrastructure design and traffic control. However, four ‘hot topics’ were rated as being risky, which were ‘small work-zone length’, ‘low curve radius’, ‘absence of shoulder’ and ‘narrow shoulder’. Some limitations were identified. Firstly, because of the method used to attribute colour code, it is in theory possible for a risk factor with a Yellow colour code to have a greater overall magnitude of impact on road safety than a risk factor coded Red. This would occur if studies reported a large impact of a risk factor but without sufficient consistency to allocate a red colour code. Road safety benefits should be expected from implementing measures to mitigate Yellow as well as Red coded infrastructure risks. Secondly, findings may have been limited by both the implemented literature search strategy and the quality of the studies identified, but this was to ensure the studies included were of sufficiently high quality to inform understanding of the risk factor. Finally, due to difficulties of finding relevant studies, it was not possible to evaluate the effects on road safety of all topics listed in the taxonomy. The next task of WP5 is to begin identifying measures that will counter the identified risk factors. Priority will be placed on investigating measures aimed to mitigate the risk factors identified as Red. The priority of risk factors in the Yellow category will depend on why they were assigned to this category and whether or not they are a hot topic

Inventory of assessed infrastructure risk factors and measures, Deliverable 5.4 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

Inventory of assessed infrastructure risk factors and measures, Deliverable 5.4 of the H2020 project SafetyCub