IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transr/v38y2018i6p765-785.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In search of surrogate safety indicators for vulnerable road users: a review of surrogate safety indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Carl Johnsson
  • Aliaksei Laureshyn
  • Tim De Ceunynck

Abstract

Surrogate indicators are meant to be alternatives or complements of safety analyses based on accident records. These indicators are used to study critical traffic events that occur more frequently, making such incidents easier to analyse. This article provides an overview of existing surrogate indicators and specifically focuses on their merit for the analyses of vulnerable road users and the extent to which they have been validated by previous research. Each indicator is evaluated based on its ability to consider the collision risk, which can be further divided into the initial conditions of an event, the magnitude of any evasive action and the injury risk in any traffic event. The results show that various indicators and their combinations can reflect different aspects of any traffic event. However, no existing indicator seems to capture all aspects. Various studies have also focused on the validity of different indicators. However, due to the use of diverse approaches to validation, the large difference in how many locations were investigated and variations in the duration of observation at each location, it is difficult to compare and discuss the validity of the different surrogate safety indicators. Since no current indicator can properly reflect all the important aspects underlined in this article, the authors suggest that the choice of a suitable indicator in future surrogate safety studies should be made with considerations of the context-dependent suitability of the respective indicator.

Suggested Citation

  • Carl Johnsson & Aliaksei Laureshyn & Tim De Ceunynck, 2018. "In search of surrogate safety indicators for vulnerable road users: a review of surrogate safety indicators," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 765-785, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:transr:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:765-785
    DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2018.1442888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01441647.2018.1442888
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01441647.2018.1442888?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Pauwels & Nadia Pourmohammad-Zia & Frederik Schulte, 2022. "Safety and Sustainable Development of Automated Driving in Mixed-Traffic Urban Areas—Considering Vulnerable Road Users and Network Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Raju, Narayana & Arkatkar, Shriniwas & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2022. "Investigating traffic safety reckoning hyperbolic driving following behavior using trajectory data," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 606(C).
    3. Lynn Scholl & Mohamed Elagaty & Bismarck Ledezma-Navarro & Edgar Zamora & Luis Miranda-Moreno, 2019. "A Surrogate Video-Based Safety Methodology for Diagnosis and Evaluation of Low-Cost Pedestrian-Safety Countermeasures: The Case of Cochabamba, Bolivia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Roja Ezzati Amini & Christos Katrakazas & Constantinos Antoniou, 2019. "Negotiation and Decision-Making for a Pedestrian Roadway Crossing: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Sorin Liviu Jurj & Tino Werner & Dominik Grundt & Willem Hagemann & Eike Möhlmann, 2022. "Towards Safe and Sustainable Autonomous Vehicles Using Environmentally-Friendly Criticality Metrics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-52, June.

    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:taf:transr:v:38:y:2018:i:6:p:765-785. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/TTRV20 .

    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.