4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Crash risk analysis during fog conditions using real-time traffic data

期刊

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 4-11

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.004

关键词

Real-Time traffic flow data; Real-time weather data; Fog; Logistic regression; Real-time crash risk; Ramps

资金

  1. Florida Department of Transportation
  2. US Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration [20.701, DTRT13-G-UTC53]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the changes of traffic characteristics and crash risks during fog conditions. Using realtime traffic flow and weather data at two regions in Florida, the traffic patterns at the fog duration were compared to the traffic patterns at the clear duration. It was found that the average 5-min speed and the average 5-min volume were prone to decreasing during fog. Based on previous studies, a Crash Risk Increase Indicator (CRII) was proposed to explore the differences of crash risk between fog and clear conditions. A binary logistic regression model was applied to link the increase of crash risks with traffic flow characteristics. The results suggested that the proposed indicator worked well in evaluating the increase of crash risk under fog condition. It was indicated that the crash risk was prone to increase at ramp vicinities in fog conditions. Also, the average 5 min volume during fog and the lane position are important factors for crash risk increase. The differences between the regions were also explored in this study. The results indicated that the locations with heavier traffic or locations at the lanes that were closest to the median in Region 2 were more likely to observe an increase in crash risks in fog conditions. It is expected that the proposed indicator can help identify the dangerous traffic status under fog conditions and then proper ITS technologies can be implemented to enhance traffic safety when the visibility declines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据