IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0361559.html

Microscopic risk assessment of highway weaving sections based on large-scale UAV trajectory data: What kinematic and interaction measures each detect

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenghua Huang
  • Zhibing Yuan
  • Mengyuan Wang
  • Peng Fu

Abstract

Microscopic risk assessment of highway weaving sections relies largely on single-vehicle kinematic indicators, yet what such indicators actually detect is rarely tested against a measure of vehicle-to-vehicle interaction. This study analyses 12,256 complete vehicle trajectories collected by UAV at seven highway weaving sections, and evaluates every trajectory along two independent dimensions: a kinematics-based composite indicator combining longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration and longitudinal jerk with entropy-derived weights, and an interaction-based measure derived from time-to-collision with the leading vehicle. Because only seven sections are available, all section-level results are assessed by exact permutation as well as by parametric tests. Three findings follow. First, cumulative risk, the time integral of instantaneous risk, is mechanically dominated by traversal time (r = 0.989 with duration, r = 0.948 with weaving length at section level) and is unsuitable for comparing sections of differing length; time-averaged risk intensity is used instead. Second, individual behaviour dominates risk variation and both dimensions agree about it: merging and diverging movements carry higher risk and more conflicts than through movements, and heavy vehicles fewer conflicts than passenger cars (1.1% against 2.7% of trajectories below TTC = 3 s). Higher entry speed shortens exposure by 30.9% and lowers cumulative risk by 25.4% while raising risk intensity by 12.7%, so it reduces exposure rather than severity. Third, and centrally, the two dimensions respond differently to section configuration: task complexity is more strongly associated with interaction-based conflict rate than with kinematic risk intensity (permutation p = 0.028), although with seven sections neither association is significant on its own (p = 0.052 and p = 0.915), and the negative association between weaving length and risk intensity is directionally consistent across three methods but does not reach significance under permutation (p = 0.083). Kinematic indicators therefore characterise the demand placed on the individual driver, and no association between them and the interaction burden a section imposes was detected in these data; the two families of measure must be reported together. Risk tiers built on either kinematic feature are nonetheless externally valid, with conflict rate rising monotonically from 1.2% to 8.3% across intensity tiers.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenghua Huang & Zhibing Yuan & Mengyuan Wang & Peng Fu, 2026. "Microscopic risk assessment of highway weaving sections based on large-scale UAV trajectory data: What kinematic and interaction measures each detect," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0361559
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0361559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361559
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361559&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0361559?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0361559. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.