SpringerLink
Log in

A Review on Surrogate Safety Measures in Safety Evaluation and Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Transportation Research Group of India (CTRG 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering ((LNCE,volume 273))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Road traffic safety has become a major problem, despite developments in technology and infrastructure. Traditionally, road safety is measured using accident data, which is essentially considered a reactive approach, although this method has time and efficiency limitations. Using surrogate safety data allows for a faster evolution of safety than using long-term accident data, according to previous studies. This paper presents an overview of the current surrogate safety measures (SSMs) that explicitly focuses on the potential to analyze vulnerable road users and the areas that previous studies have ratified. In a compressive and quantitative manner, the scope analysis explored how surrogate safety measures (SSMs) have been applied so far in scientific literature and what are their key drawbacks. This study will also help to identify new ideas in this field and identify recommendations for research leading to the emergence of a new use of surrogate safety measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Population Prospects: The 2019 revision. United Nations Department of Economic and social affairs (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  2. MoRTH (2019) Road accidents in India. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Transport Research Wing, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Road Association (2013) PIARC Annual Report–October 2013/ October 2014

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alsop J, Langley J (2001) Under-reporting of motor vehicle traffic crash victims in New Zealand. Accid Anal Prev 33:353–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Archer J (2005) Indicators for traffic safety assessment and prediction and their application in micro-simulation modelling: a study of urban and suburban intersections. KTH Royal Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  6. Salifu M, Ackaah W (2012) Under-reporting of road traffic crash data in Ghana. Int J Int Control Saf Promot 19:331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Watson A, Watson BC, Vallmuur K (2013) How accurate is the identification of serious traffic injuries by Police? In: The concordance between police and hospital reported traffic injuries, Proceedings of the 2013 Australasian road safety research, policing & education conference

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yang J (2012) Reactive silica transport in fractured porous media: analytical solution for a single fracture. Comput Geosci 38:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2011.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tarko AP, Davis G, Saunier N, Sayed T, Washington S (2009) Surrogate measures of safety. In: White Paper ANB20 (3) Subcommittee on Surrogate Measures of Safety ANB20 Committee on Safety Data Evaluation and Analysis Contributors. Transportation Research Board

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bearman1 M, Dawson P (2013) Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ 47: 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12092

  11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff A, Altman D (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

  12. Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0

    Google Scholar 

  13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dangelico, Vocalelli D (2017) Green marketing: an analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. J Clean Prod 165:1263–1279

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pahlevan-Sharif S, Murab P, Wijesinghe NR (2019) J Hosp Tourism Manage 39:158–165

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arun A, Haque MM, Washington S, Sayed T, Mannering F (2021) A systematic review of traffic conflict-based safety measures with a focus on application context. Anal Methods Accid Res 32, 100185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2021.100185

  17. Almeida CP, Goular BN (2017) How to avoid bias in systematic reviews of observational studies. Rev CEFAC 19(4):551–555

    Google Scholar 

  18. Perkins SR, Harris JL (1967) Criteria for traffic conflict characteristics. Report GMR 632. General Motors Corporation, Warren Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  19. Allen B, Shin B, Cooper P (1978) Analysis of traffic conflict and collisions. Transportation research record no. 677, p 67–74

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cooper PJ (1983) Experience with traffic conflicts in Canada with emphasis on ‘post-encroachment time’ technique. In: Proceedings, international calibration study of traffic conflict techniques, Copenhagen, pp 75–96

    Google Scholar 

  21. Archer J (2004) Methods for the assessment and prediction of traffic safety at urban intersections and their application in micro-simulation modeling, Royal Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chin H-C, Quek S-T (1997) Measurement of traffic conflicts. Saf Sci 26:169–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gettman D, Head L (2003) Surrogate safety measures from traffic simulation models: final report. Publication No. FHWA-RD-03–050. Federal Highway Administration, McLean. USA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Glauz WD, Migletz DJ (1980) Application of traffic conflict analysis at intersections. In: NCHRP Report 219, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  25. Parker MR, Zegeer CV (1989) Traffic conflict technique for safety and operation: engineers guide. Report FHWA-IP-88–026, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation

    Google Scholar 

  26. Porter BE, Berry TD, Harlow J (1999) A nationwide survey of red light running: measuring driver behaviors for the ‘Stop Red Light Running’ Program. Report, Daimler Chrysler Corporation

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, Moore VM, Ponte G (1997) Traveling speed and the rate of crash involvement. Volume 1: findings. Report No. CR 172. Federal Office of Road Safety FORS, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hayward JC (1972) Near-miss determination through use of a scale of danger. Highway Research Board. Report No. HRR 384:24–35

    Google Scholar 

  29. Minder houd MM, Bovy PHL (2001) Extended time-to-collision measures for road traffic safety assessment. Acc Anal Prevent 33(1):89–97

    Google Scholar 

  30. Songchitruksa P, Tarko A (2006) The extreme value theory approach to safety estimation. Accid Anal Prev 28:811–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Songchitruksa P (2004) Innovative non-crash-based safety estimation: an extreme value theory approach. PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

    Google Scholar 

  32. Songchitruksa P, Tarko AP (2004) Using imaging technology to evaluate highway safety. Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004, Grant No. SPR-2663, Purdue University

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harwood DW, Gilmore DK, Richard KR, Dunn JM, Sun C (2008) Passing sight distance criteria. NCHRP Report. Transp Res Board 605

    Google Scholar 

  34. Preusser DF, Leaf WA, DeBartolo KB, Blomberg RD (1981) The effects of right-turn-on-red on pedestrian and bicyclist accidents, Report No DOT HS 806:182 Dunlap & Associates Inc Darien Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  35. Davis GA, Hourdos J, **ong H, Chatterjee I (2011) Outline for a causal model of traffic conflicts and crashes. Accid Anal Prev 43:1907–1919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mak KK, Sicking DL (2003) Roadside safety analysis program (RSAP)—engineering manual. In: National cooperative highway research program report 492. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, USA

    Google Scholar 

  37. Amundsen F, Hydén C (1977) Proceedings of first workshop on traffic conflicts. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  38. Archer J (2000) Develo** the potential of micro-simulation modeling for traffic safety assessment. ICTCT, Corfu, Greece

    Google Scholar 

  39. Laureshyn A, Svensson A, Hydén C (2010) Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioral data: theoretical framework and first implementation. Accid Anal Prev 42:1637–1646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gettman D, Pu L, Sayed T, Shelby S (2008) Surrogate safety assessment model and validation: Final report. Report No. FHWA-HRT-08–051. Federal Highway Administration, McLean. USA

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lamm R, Psarianos B, Cafiso S (2002) Safety evaluation process for two-lane rural roads: a 10-Year Review, Transp Res Record 1796:51–59.https://doi.org/10.3141/1796-06

  42. Ghanim MS, Shaaban K (2018) A case study for surrogate safety assessment model in predicting real-life conflicts. Arab J Sci Eng 44:4225–4231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kathuria A, Vedagiri P (2020) Evaluating pedestrian-vehicle interaction dynamics at un-signalized intersections: a proactive approach for safety analysis. Accid Anal Prev 134:105316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Marisamynathan S, Vedagiri P (2020) Pedestrian safety evaluation of signalized intersections using surrogate safety measures. Transport 35(1):48–56

    Google Scholar 

  45. Perkins SR, Harris JI (1968) Traffic conflict characteristics: accident potential at intersections. Highway Research Record, vol 225. Highway Research Board, Washington DC, pp 45–143

    Google Scholar 

  46. Baker WT (1972) An evaluation of the traffic conflicts technique. In: 51st annual meeting of the Highway Research Board

    Google Scholar 

  47. Malaterre G, Muhlrad H (1977) A conflict technique. In Proceedings First Workshop on Trafic Conflicts. Oslo Norway pp 47–58

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dingus T, Neale V, Klauer S, Klauer A, Carroll R (2006) The development of a naturalistic data collection system to perform critical incident analysis: an investigation of safety and fatigue issues in long-haul trucking. Acc Anal Prevent 38:1127–1136

    Google Scholar 

  49. Phillips RO, Bjørnskau T, Hagman R, Sagberg F (2011) Reduction in car-bicycle conflict at a road- cycle path intersection: evidence of road user adaptation? Transp. Trans Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 14:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pugh DE, Halpin TJ (1974) Traffic conflicts in Washington State. Washington State Department of Highways

    Google Scholar 

  51. Spicer BR (1971) A pilot study of traffic conflicts at a rural dual carriageway intersection. RRL Report LR410. Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tarko AP. Estimating the expected number of crashes with traffic conflicts and the Lomax Distribution—a theoretical and numerical exploration. Acc Anal Prevent. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.(2018).01.008

  53. Hyden C (1975) Relations between conflicts and traffic accidents. Department of Traffic Planning and Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology Lund, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hydén C (1987) The development of a method for traffic safety evaluation: the Swedish traffic conflicts technique. Bulletin 70, Dept. of Traffic Planning and Engineering, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  55. Campbell RE, King LE (1970) Rural intersection investigation for the purpose of evaluating the General Motors Traffic-Conflicts technique. HRB Spec Rep 107:60–69

    Google Scholar 

  56. Svensson Å (1998) A method for analyzing the traffic process in a safety perspective. Dissertation, Lund University

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sayed T, Brown G, Navin F (1994) Simulation of traffic conflicts at unsignalized intersections with TSC- Sim. Acc Anal Prev 5(26):593–607

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jiang R, Zhu S, Wang P, Chen Q, Zou H, Kuang S (2020) In search of the consequence severity of traffic conflict. J Adv Transp ID 9089817

    Google Scholar 

  59. Basyouny K, Sayed T (2012) Safety performance functions using traffic conflicts. Saf Sci 51(2013):160–164

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tarko P, Lizarazo CG (2021) Validity of failure-caused traffic conflicts as surrogates of rear-end collisions in naturalistic driving studies. Acc Anal Prevent 149:105863

    Google Scholar 

  61. Qi W, Wang W, Shen B, Wu J (2020) A modified post encroachment time model of urban road merging area based on lane change characteristic. IEEE Access

    Google Scholar 

  62. Shekhar Babu S, Vedagiri P (2016) Proactive safety evaluation of a multilane unsignalized intersection using surrogate measures. Transp Lett. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2016.1230172

  63. Coudhary A, Gore N, Arkatkar S, Joshi G, Pulugurtha S (2020) Exploring pedestrian surrogate safety measures by road geometry at midblock crosswalks: a perspective under mixed traffic conditions, IATSSR 248

    Google Scholar 

  64. Goyani J, Pawar N, Gore N, Jain M, Arkatkar S (2019) Investigation of traffic conflict at unsignalized intersection for reckoning crash probability under mix traffic condition. J Eastern Asia Soc Transp Stud 13

    Google Scholar 

  65. Naidu B, Chhabra RS. Safety indicators for heterogeneous non lane based traffic—a case study at outer ring road-Delhi 11(10). https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/(2018)/v11i10/103552

  66. Reddy S, Chepuri A, Arkatkar S, Joshi G (2019) Develo** proximal safety indicators for assessment of un-signalized intersection—a case study in Surat city. Transp Lett

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kumar A, Paul M, Ghosh I (2019) Analysis of pedestrian conflict with right-turning vehicles at signalized Intersections in India. J Transp Eng Part A Syst 145(6):04019018

    Google Scholar 

  68. Goyani J, Paul AB, Gore N, Arkatkar S, Joshi, G (2021) Investigation of crossing conflicts by vehicle type at unsignalized t-intersections under varying roadway and traffic conditions in India. J Transp Eng Part A Syst 147(2):05020011

    Google Scholar 

  69. Chaudhari A, Gore N, Arkatkar S, Joshi G, Pulugurtha S (2021) Exploring pedestrian surrogate safety measures by road geometry at midblock crosswalks: a perspective under mixed traffic conditions. IATSS Res 45(1):87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.06.00

  70. Pawar N, Gore N, Arkatkar S (2019) Influence of driving environment on safety at un-signalized T-intersection under mixed traffic conditions. Innov Res Transp Infrastruct

    Google Scholar 

  71. Shekhar Babu S, Vedagiri P (2017) Traffic conflict analysis of unsignalized intersection under mix traffic condition. Eur Transp Transporti Europei 66(10)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vedagiri P, Killi VD (2015) Traffic safety evaluation of uncontrolled intersections using surrogate safety measures under mixed traffic conditions. Transp Res Rec 2512(1):81–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Paul M, Ghosh I (2018) Speed-based proximal indicator for right-turn crashes at unsignalized intersections in India. J Transp Eng Part A Syst 144(6):04018024

    Google Scholar 

  74. Mohanty M, Panda B, Dey PP (2020) Quantification of surrogate safety measure to predict severity of road crashes at median openings. IATSSR-00257, p 7

    Google Scholar 

  75. Nadimi N, Behbahani H, RezaShahbazi H (2016) Calibration and validation of a new time-based surrogate safety measure using fuzzy inference system. J Traffic Transp Eng (English Edition) 3(1):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mahmud SM, Ferreira L, Hoque Md, Tavassoli A (2019) Using a surrogate safety approach to prioritize hazardous segments in a rural highway in a develo** country, R-00228, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  77. Cooper DF, Ferguson N (1976) Traffic studies at T-junctions: 2. a conflict simulation model. Traffic Eng Control 17(7):306–309

    Google Scholar 

  78. Darzentas J, Cooper DF, Storr PA, McDowell MRC (1980) Simulation of road traffic conflicts at T. junctions. Simulation 5(34):155–164

    Google Scholar 

  79. Pirdavani A, Brijs T, Bellemans T, Wets G (2010) Evaluation of traffic safety at un-signalized intersections using micro simulation: a utilization of proximal safety indicators. Adv Transp Stud Int J Sect A

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ambros J, Turek R, Paukrt J (2014) Road safety evaluation using traffic conflict: pilot comparison of micro-simulation and observation. In: International conference on traffic and transport engineering, Belgrade (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Caliendo C, Guida M (2012) Micro simulation approach for predicting crashes at unsignalized intersections using traffic conflicts. J Transp Eng 138:1453–1467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Dijkstra A (2010) Do calculated conflicts relate to observed crashes? Retrieving conflicts from S-Paramics. In: The 10th Annual S-Paramics user group meeting & conference

    Google Scholar 

  83. Fan R et al (2013) Using VISSIM simulation model and surrogate safety assessment model for estimating field measured traffic conflicts at freeway merge areas. IET Intell Transp Syst 7(1):68–77

    Google Scholar 

  84. Huang F, Liu P, Yu H, Wang W (2013) Identifying if VISSIM simulation model and SSAM provide reasonable estimates for field measured traffic conflicts at signalized intersections. Accid Anal Prev 50:1014–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Cunto F, Saccomanno FF (2008) Calibration and validation of simulated vehicle safety performance at signalized intersections. Accid Anal Prev 3(40):1171–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ozbay K, Yang H, Bartin B (20008) Derivation and validation of a new simulation-based surrogate safety measure. Transportation Research Board’s 87th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  87. Yang H, Ozbay K, Bartin B (2010) Application of simulation-based traffic conflict analysis for highway safety evaluation. Proc 1098 12th WCTR, July 11–15, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  88. Bachmann C, Roorda MJ, Abdulhai B (2011) Simulating traffic conflicts on truck-only infrastructure using an improved time-to-collision definition. In: 90th transportation research board annual meeting (CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  89. Astarita V et al (2012) A new microsimulation model for the evaluation of traffic safety performances. Eur Transp (51):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  90. Guido G, Saccomanno F, Vitale A, Astarita V, Festa D (2011) Comparing safety performance measures obtained from video capture data. J Transp Eng 137:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Sayed T, Zaki MH, Autey J (2013) Automated safety diagnosis of vehicle–bicycle interactions using computer vision analysis. Saf Sci 59:163–172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Giuffrè O, Granà A, Tumminello M, Giuffrè T, Trubia S, Sferlazza A, Rencelj M (2018) Evaluation of roundabout safety performance through surrogate safety measures from micro simulation. J Adv Transp 2018(4915970):14

    Google Scholar 

  93. Astarita V, Giofrè VP (2020) Trajectory perturbation in surrogate safety indicators. Transp Res Proc 8

    Google Scholar 

  94. Bulla-Cruz LA, Laureshyn A, Lyons L (2020) Event-based road safety assessment: a novel approach towards risk microsimulation in roundabouts. Measurement 165:108–192

    Google Scholar 

  95. Alonso B, Astarita V, DelÍOlio L, Giofré VP, Guido G, Marino M, Sommario W, Vitale A, (2020) Validation of simulated safety indicators with traffic crash data. Sustain 12:925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030925

  96. Virdia N, Grzybowskaa H, Wallera S, Dixit V (2019) A safety assessment of mixed fleets with connected and autonomous vehicles using the surrogate safety assessment module. Acc Anal Prevent 131:95–111

    Google Scholar 

  97. Killi DV, Vedagiri P (2014) Proactive evaluation of traffic safety at an unsignalized intersection using micro simulation. J Traffic Logist Eng 2(2)

    Google Scholar 

  98. Paul M, Ghosh I (2021) Development of conflict severity index for safety evaluation serve crash type at unsignlized intersection under mix traffic condition. Saf Sci 144:105432

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal, Bhopal, India

    Dungar Singh & Pritikana Das

Authors
  1. Dungar Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pritikana Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pritikana Das .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Lelitha Devi

  2. CSIR-Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi, India

    Madhu Errampalli

  3. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

    Avijit Maji

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Gitakrishnan Ramadurai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Transportation Research Group of India

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Singh, D., Das, P. (2023). A Review on Surrogate Safety Measures in Safety Evaluation and Analysis. In: Devi, L., Errampalli, M., Maji, A., Ramadurai, G. (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Transportation Research Group of India . CTRG 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 273. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4204-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4204-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-4203-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-4204-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation