An Assessment of Post-Encroachment Times for Bicycle-Vehicle Interactions Observed in the Field, a Driving Simulator, and in Traffic Simulation Models
Most safety analysis is conducted using crash data. Surrogate safety measures, such as various time-based measures of time-to-collision can be related to crash potential and used to gain insight into the frequency and severity of crashes at a specific location. One of the most common and acknowledge...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Published: |
PDXScholar
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds/3379 https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4395&context=open_access_etds |
| Summary: | Most safety analysis is conducted using crash data. Surrogate safety measures, such as various time-based measures of time-to-collision can be related to crash potential and used to gain insight into the frequency and severity of crashes at a specific location. One of the most common and acknowledged measures is post-encroachment time (PET) which defines the time between vehicles occupying a conflicting space. While commonly used in studies of motor vehicle interactions, studies of PET for bicycle-vehicle interactions are few. In this research, the PET of bicycle-vehicle interactions measured in the field, a driving simulator, and in a micro-simulation are compared. A total of 52 right-hook conflicts were identified in 135 hours of video footage over 14 days at a signalized intersection in Portland, OR (SW Taylor and SW Naito Pkwy). The results showed that 4 of 17 high-risk conflicts could not be identified by the conventional definition of PET and PET values of some conflicts did not reflect true risk of collision. Therefore, right-hook conflicts were categorized into two types and a modified measure of PET was proposed so that their frequency and severity were properly measured. PETs from the field were then compared to those measures in the Oregon State University driving simulator during research conducted by Dr. Hurwitz et al. (2015) studying the right-hook conflicts. Statistical and graphical methods were used to compare field PETs to those in the simulator. The results suggest that the relative validity of the OSU driving simulator was good but not conclusive due to differences in traffic conditions and intersections. To further explore the field-observed PET values, traffic simulation models of the field intersection were developed and calibrated. Right-hook conflicts were extracted from the simulation files and conflicts observed in PM-peak hours over 6 days in the field were compared to those obtained from 24 traffic simulation runs. The field-observed PET values did not match the values from the simulation values very well. However, the approach does show promise. Further calibration of driving and bicycling behaviors would likely improve the result. |
|---|