Evaluation of Postencroachment Time as Surrogate for Opposing Left-Turn Crashes

Abstract

Highway safety evaluation has traditionally been performed by using crash data, although this method has limitations in terms of timeliness and efficiency. Previous studies show that the use of surrogate safety data allows for faster evaluation of safety in comparison with the significantly longer time horizon required for collecting crash data. However, the predictive capability of surrogate measures is still an area of ongoing research. Previous studies have often resulted in inconsistent findings for the relationship between surrogates and crashes, one of the primary reasons being inconsistent definitions of a conflict. This study evaluated the effectiveness of postencroachment time (PET) as a surrogate measure for the propensity of crashes between left-turning vehicles and opposing through vehicles at four-leg signalized intersections. The primary method of data collection was through video recording with postprocessing. Custom semiautomatic video processing software was used to reduce the video to a usable format for analysis. The study evaluated the effectiveness of PET as a surrogate measure by comparing three variations of the PET measure with crash history. This comparison showed that the threshold value of PET played an important role in establishing its correlation with crashes, with the best results at a threshold as low as 1 s.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nicholson

A. J.

The Variability of Accident Counts. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1985, pp. 47–56.

Perkins

, and Harris

Criteria for Traffic Conflict Characteristics. Report GMR 632. General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Mich., 1967.

Hyden

The Development of a Method for Traffic Safety Evaluation: The Swedish Traffic Conflicts Technique. Bulletin 70. Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 1987.

Parker

M. R.

Jr. , and Zegeer

C. V.

Traffic Conflict Techniques for Safety and Operations: Engineer's Guide. Report FHWA-IP-026. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1989.

Tarko

, Davis

, Saunier

, Sayed

, and Washington

Surrogate Measures of Safety. White Paper. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.

Minderhoud

M. M.

, and Bovy

P. H. L.

Extended Time-to-Collision Measures for Road Traffic Safety Assessment. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2001, pp. 89–97.

Peesapati

, Hunter

M. P.

, Rodgers

M. O.

, and Guin

A Profiling Based Approach to Surrogate Safety Data Collection. Proc., 3rd International Conference on Road Safety and Simulation, Indianapolis, Ind., 2011.

Hayward

Near Miss Determination Through Use of a Scale of Danger. Report TTSC-7115. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1972.

Hauer

Traffic Conflicts and Exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1982, pp. 359–364.

10.

Sayed

, and Zein

Traffic Conflict Standards for Intersections. Transportation Planning and Technology, No. 22, 1999, pp. 309–323.

11.

Hauer

, and Garder

Research into the Validity of the Traffic Conflicts Technique. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 18, 1986, pp. 164–174.

12.

Williams

M. J.

Validity of the Traffic Conflicts Technique. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1981, pp. 133–135.

13.

Baker

W. T.

, and Glauz

W. D.

The Traffic Conflicts Experience in the United States. Proc., First Workshop on Traffic Conflicts, Oslo, Norway, 1977.

14.

Hyden

A Traffic-Conflicts Technique for Examining Urban Intersection Problems. Proc., First Workshop on Traffic Conflicts, Oslo, Norway, 1977.

15.

Zimmerman

, Zimolong

, and Erke

The Development of Traffic Conflicts Technique in the Federal Republic of Germany. Proc., First Workshop on Traffic Conflicts, Oslo, Norway, 1977.

16.

Allen

B. L.

, Shin

B. T.

, and Cooper

P. J.

Analysis of Traffic Conflict Collisions. In Transportation Research Record 667, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978, pp. 67–74.

17.

Cooper

, and Ferguson

A Conflict Simulation Model. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 17, 1976, pp. 306–309.

18.

Songchitruksa

, and Tarko

A. P.

Using Imaging Technology to Evaluate Highway Safety. Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.

19.

Gettman

, Pu

, Sayed

, and Shelby

Surrogate Safety Assessment Model and Validation: Final Report. Publication FHWA-HRT-08-051. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008.

20.

Archer

, and Young

Signal Treatments to Reduce Heavy Vehicle Crash-Risk at Metropolitan Highway Intersections. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2009, pp. 404–411.

21.

CARE 9 User Manual. Center for Advanced Public Safety, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, 2009.

22.

Elvik

, Erke

, and Christensen

Elementary Units of Exposure. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2103, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 25–31.

23.

Highway Safety Manual, 1st ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2011.

24.

Saunier

, and Sayed

T. A.

Probabilistic Framework for Automated Analysis of the Exposure to Road Collision. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2083, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 96–104.

25.

Songchitruksa

, and Tarko

A. P.

The Extreme Value Theory Approach to Safety Estimation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2006, pp. 811–822.

26.

Hakkert

A. S.

, and Mahalel

Estimating the Number of Accidents at Intersections from a Knowledge of the Traffic Flow on the Approaches. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 10, 1978, pp. 69–78.

27.

Svensson

A Method for Analyzing the Traffic Process in a Safety Perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Lund University, Sweden, 1998.