A Systematic Review of Traffic Conflict-Based Safety Measures with a Focus on Application Context

, , , Sayed, Tarek, & Mannering, Fred L. (2021) A Systematic Review of Traffic Conflict-Based Safety Measures with a Focus on Application Context. Analytic Methods in Accident Research, 32, Article number: 100185.

View at publisher

Description

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.

Impact and interest:

81 citations in Scopus
34 citations in Web of Science®
Search Google Scholar™

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

304 since deposited on 17 Aug 2021
237 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 212594
Item Type: Contribution to Journal (Journal Article)
Refereed: Yes
ORCID iD:
Arun, Ashutoshorcid.org/0000-0002-8472-2099
Haque, Shimul (Md. Mazharul)orcid.org/0000-0003-1016-110X
Measurements or Duration: 46 pages
DOI: 10.1016/j.amar.2021.100185
ISSN: 2213-6657
Pure ID: 96726686
Divisions: Current > Research Centres > Centre for Future Mobility/CARRSQ
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Engineering
Current > Schools > School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Copyright Owner: 2021 Elsevier Ltd.
Copyright Statement: This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au
Deposited On: 17 Aug 2021 04:37
Last Modified: 02 Aug 2024 23:23