Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging conventional and proactive approaches for road safety analytic modeling and future perspectives

  • State-of-the-Art Paper
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For many years, research has been primarily focused on enhancing our understanding of the factors that impact the probability of vehicle crashes. The evaluation of safety has traditionally relied heavily on crash data, employing conventional statistical methods like regression analysis, techniques that address unobserved variations, and data-driven methodologies, including machine learning and neural networks. However, the analysis of crash count data can become complex when dealing with locations that have either an abundance of zero crashes or sites with notably high crash rates. Consequently, there is a need for scientific methodologies that can generate reliable and valid safety assessments without depending exclusively on crash data. Road safety assessment through proactive methods such as conflict analysis, road safety audits, road safety inspections, the safe system approach, and pedestrian audits offers a more efficient, dependable, and expeditious alternative that doesn't rely on crash data. This paper builds upon previous research in both conventional/traditional and proactive road safety approaches. It provides an in-depth examination of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) associated with both approaches. Furthermore, this paper delves into analytical modeling approaches, considering various variables such as vehicle characteristics, driver attributes, roadway design elements, crash-related factors, environmental influences, and more. Additionally, this paper extensively explores future scenarios for the implementation of safety approaches over the coming decades. This comprehensive analysis is intended to aid both researchers and practitioners in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the diverse methodologies available for safety assessment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Datasets are available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Abdel-aty MA et al (2012) Real-time prediction of visibility related crashes. Transp Res Part C 24:288–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AlHamad S, Almallah M, Naser MN, Alhajyaseen WK, de Roos MP (2023) Examining the role of road safety audits worldwide: exploring road safety expert’s opinions. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 30(1):106–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2022.2114090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pirdavani A, De Pauw E, Brijs T, Daniels S, Magis M, Bellemans T, Wets G (2015) Application of a rule-based approach in real-time crash risk prediction model development using loop detector data. Traffic Inj Prev 16(8):786–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1017572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen B, Shin B, Cooper P (1978). Analysis of traffic conflict and collisions. Transportation Research Record No. 677. (HS-025 846). p. 67–74

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Archer J (2000) Developing the potential of micro-simulation modeling for traffific safety assessment. ICTCT, Corfu

    Google Scholar 

  7. Archer J (2005) Indicators for traffic safety assessment and prediction and their application in micro-simulation modelling: a study of urban and suburban intersections. Doctoral thesis, Sewden.

  8. Alozi AR, Hussein M (2022) Evaluating the safety of autonomous vehicle–pedestrian interactions: an extreme value theory approach. Anal Methods Accid Res 35:100230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2022.100230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aljamal MA, Farag M, Rakha HA (2020) Developing data-driven approaches for traffic density estimation using connected vehicle data. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Paul AB, Gore N, Arkatkar S, Joshi G (2022) Investigating and modeling the influence of PET-types on crossing conflicts at urban unsignalized intersections in India. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2022.2147194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Austin RD, Carson JL (2002) An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. Accid Anal Prev 34:31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mendoza A, Wybourn C, Mendoza M, Cruz M, Juillard C, Dicker R (2017) The worldwide approach to vision zero: implementing road safety strategies to eliminate trafficrelated fatalities. Curr Trauma Rep 3(2):104–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bisht LS, Tiwari G (2020) Assessing the black spots focused policies for indian national highways. Transp Res Proced 48(2019):2537–2549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bose R (2008) Competitive intelligence process and tools for intelligence analysis. Ind Manag Data Syst 108(4):510–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Corben B, Logan D, Fanciulli L, Farley R, Cameron I (2010) Strengthening road safety strategy development ‘towards zero’ 2008–2020: Western Australia’s experience. Saf Sci 48(9):1085–1097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boroujerdian AM, Saffarzadeh M, Yousefi H et al (2014) A model to identify high crash road segments with the dynamic segmentation method. Accid Anal Prev 73:274–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng W, Washington SP (2005) Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods. Accid Anal Prev 37(5):870–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen Z et al (2018) Predicting imminent crash risk with simulated traffic from distant sensors. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2672(38):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118791379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen F, Song M, Ma X (2019) Investigation on the injury severity of drivers in rear-end collisions between cars using a random parameters bivariate ordered Probit model. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(14):2632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16142632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chin H, Quek S (1997) Measurement of traffic conflicts. Saf Sci 26(3):169–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00041-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen D, Cheng S, Liu J, Zhang J, You X (2023). A simulation-based optimization method for truck-prohibit ramp placement along freeways. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.

  22. Council TS (2009) Before-and-after study technical brief. Institute of transportation engineers.

  23. Cui H, Xie K (2021) An accelerated hierarchical Bayesian crash frequency model with accommodation of spatiotemporal interactions. Accid Anal Prev 153:106018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cui H, Dong J, Zhu M, Li X, Wang Q (2022) Identifying accident black spots based on the accident spacing distribution. J Traffic Transp Eng (Eng Ed) 9(6):1017–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2021.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chang A, Saunier N, Laureshyn A (2017). Proactive methods for road safety analysis. SAE International, 5. http://papers.sae.org/wp-0005/

  26. Salvatore C, Grazia LC, Alfonso M (2007) Safety index for evaluation of two-lane rural highways. Transp Res Rec 2019:136–145. https://doi.org/10.3141/2019-17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Leur P, Sayed T (2003) A framework to proactively consider road safety within the road planning process. Can J Civ Eng 30(4):711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dong N, Huang H, Lee J et al (2016) Macroscopic hotspots identification: a Bayesian spatio-temporal interaction approach. Accid Anal Prev 92:256–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ding Y (2019) Traffic accident characteristics and technical countermeasures of shuima expressway traffic (master thesis). Chang’an University, Xi’an.

  30. Debrabant B, Halekoh U, Bonat WH, Hansen DL, Hjelmborg J, Lauritsen J (2018) Identifying traffic accident black spots with Poisson-Tweedie models. Accid Anal Prev 111:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dutta P (2018) Human health risk assessment under uncertain environment and its swot analysis. Open Public Health J 11:72–92. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874944501811010072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Eenink R, Reurings M, Elvik R, Cardoso J, Wichert S, Stefan C (2008) Accident prediction models and road safety impact assessment: recommendations for using these tools. Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam

    Google Scholar 

  33. Elvebakk VZ (2007) Remaking road safety. Mobilities 2(3):425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Elvik R (2002) The importance of confounding in observational before-and-after studies of road safety measures. Accid; anal prev 34:631–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00062-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Elvik R (2008) The predictive validity of empirical Bayes estimates of road safety. Accid Anal Prev 40(6):1964–1969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Elvik R, Høye A, Vaa T, Sørensen M (2009) Literature survey and meta-analysis the handbook of road safety measures. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp 15–33

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Elvik R (2023) What would a road safety policy fully consistent with safe system principles mean for road safety? Accid Anal Prev 193:107336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gettman D, Pu L, Sayed T, Shelby S (2008). Surrogate safety assessment model and validation: final report. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-08-051, June, 1–324

  39. Fan P, Dong X (2019) Analysis of common features of accidentsprone spots in urban roads network and corresponding application based on spatial cluster. Transp Sci Technol 295(4):213–215

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fan Z, Liu C, Cai D, Yue S (2019) Research on black spot identification of safety in urban traffic accidents based on machine learning method. Saf Sci 118:607–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haghighi F, Maskooni EK (2018) Evaluation and statistical validation of black-spots identification methods International. J Transp Eng 6(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  42. Margaret G et al (2006) Road safety audits: case studies. Opus Hamilton Consultants Ltd Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc, Federal Highway Administration

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gaspers K (2004). On the road to danger: WHO call traffic injuries A global public health problem. Safety & health, national safety council, Illinois

  44. Haleem K, Alluri P, Gan A (2015) Analyzing pedestrian crash injury severity at signalized and non-signalized locations. Accid Anal Prev 81:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Habib M, Bachir H (2023) Evaluating the accuracy and effectiveness of machine learning methods for rapidly determining the safety factor of road embankments. Multidiscip Model Mater Struct 19(5):1573–6105. https://doi.org/10.1108/MMMS-12-2022-0290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Harirforoush H, Bellalite L (2016) A new integrated GIS-based analysis to detect hotspots: a case study of the city of Sherbrooke. Accid Anal Prev 130:62–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hauer E (1997) Observational before/after studies in road safety. Estimating the effect of highway and traffic engineering measures on road safety. Pergamon Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hoque MM, (1997). Road safety audit in developing countries. Transportation research group, department of civil and environment engineering, university of Southampton, UK

  49. Hussein N, Hassan R, Fahey MT (2021) Effect of pavement condition and geometrics at signalised intersections on casualty crashes. J Saf Res 76:276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.12.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hu J, Fei X, Liu X (2007) Statistical identification and countermeasures of places with frequent road traffic accidents. J Beijing Univ Technol 5:465–469

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hunt D, Naweed A (2023) ‘The risk of risk assessments : investigating dangerous workshop biases through a socio-technical systems model.’ Saf Sci 157:105918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hydén C, (1987). The development of a method for traffic safety evaluation: The Swedish traffic conflicts technique. Bulletin lund institute of technology, Department, (70)

  53. Hutchinson TP (1986) Statistical modelling of injury severity with special reference to driver and front seat passengers in single-vehicle crashes. Accid anal prev New York 18(2):157–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Huvarinen Y, Svatkova E, Oleshchenko E, Pushchina S (2017) Road safety audit. Transp Res Proc 20:236–241

    Google Scholar 

  55. Jain SS, Singh PK, Parida M (2011). Road safety audit for four lane national highways. In: 3rd International conference on road safety and simulation, Indianapolis, US, 1–22.

  56. Johansson O, Pearce D, Maddison D (2014) Blueprint 5: true costs of road transport. Routledge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Johnsson C, Laureshyn A, De Ceunynck T (2018) In search of surrogate safety indicators for vulnerable road users: a review of surrogate safety indicators. Transp Rev 38(6):765–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1442888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Jovanovi D, Mi S (2019) Macro-level accident modeling in Novi Sad: a spatial regression approach. Accid Anal Prev 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105259

  59. Jun Y, Go J, Yeom C (2022) Experimental variables assessment for virtual road safety audit using analytic hierarchy process. J Transp Saf Sec 14(6):1002–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2021.1883169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jun Y, Go J, Yeom C (2022) Experimental variables assessment for virtual road safety audit using analytic hierarchy process. J Transp Saf Secur 14(6):1002–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2021.1883169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Khorasani-Zavareh D (2011) System versus traditional approach in road traffic injury prevention: a call for action. J Inj Violence Res. 3(2):61. https://doi.org/10.5249/jivr.v3i2.128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kenan T, Pislaru C, Elzawi A (2014) Trends and policy issues for the e-learning implementation in Libyan universities. Int J Trade Econ Financ 5(1):105–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kristianssen AC, Andersson R, Belin MA et al (2018) Swedish vision zero policies for safety e a comparative policy content analysis. Saf Sci 103:260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kanellaidis G (1999) Aspects of road safety audits. J Transp Eng 125(6):481–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lee J, Mannering F (2002) Impact of roadside features on the frequency and severity of run-off-roadway accidents: an empirical analysis. Accid Anal Prev 34:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lyon C, Persaud B, Eccles K (2015) Safety evaluation of center line plus shoulder rumble strips, technical report Report No. FHWA-HRT-15-048, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA

  68. Li Z, Ci Y, Chen C, Zhang G, Wu Q, Qian ZS, Prevedouros PD, Ma DT (2019) Investigation of driver injury severities in rural single-vehicle crashes under rain conditions using mixed logit and latent class models. Accid Anal Prev 124:219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.12.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lutschounig S, Nadler H (2005) State of the practice RSI. Report of WP 5 of RIPCORD-ISEREST

  70. Lord D, Washington S, Ivan J (2007) Further notes on the application of zero-inflated models in highway safety. Accid Anal Prev 39:53–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Mondal S, Pandey A, Gupta A et al (2023) Identifying the critical risk factors for road crashes based on large-scale safety audits in India. KSCE J Civ Eng 27:4906–4918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-0679-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Belin M, Tillgren P, Vedung E (2012) Vision zero: a road safety policy innovation. Int J Injury Control Safe Promot 19(2):171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mahmud SM, Ferreira L, Hojati A (2016) Traditional approaches to traffic safety evaluation (TSE): application challenges and future directions. Br East West. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479810028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Meuleners L, Fraser M (2008) Review of the Wa state black spot program: a literature review of Australian and international black spot programs. Centre for population health research, School of Public Health, Curtin University of Technology, Perth

  75. MoRTH (2021) Road accidents in India. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Transport Research Wing, New Delhi

  76. McGill J et al (2005) Road safety audit guidelines. Science applications international corporation, synectics transportation consultants, Kittelson and Associates, CTRE, Penn State, Federal Highway Administration. Washington

  77. Mhetre KV, Thube AD (2022) Road safety, crash hot-spot, and crash cold-spot identification on a rural national highway in Maharashtra India. Mater Today: Proc. 77:780–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.11.447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Mocsari T, Hollo P, (2006) Common understanding on road safety inspection, Report of WP 5 of RIPCORD- ISEREST

  79. Mooren L, Grzebieta R, Job S (2011) Safe system–comparisons of this approach in Australia. In Australasian college of road safety national conference, Melbourne

  80. Ogden KW (1996) Safer roads: a guide to road safety engineering. Institute of transport studies, department of civil engineering, Monash University, Melbourne Australia

  81. Oulha R, Derras A (2023) A proactive decision support tool for road safety audit of new highway projects based on crash modification factors and analytical analysis : Algeria as a case study. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 30(3):455–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2023.2210558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Perkins SR, Harris JL (1967). Criteria for traffic conflict characteristics. Report GMR 632. General motors corporation, Warren Michigan

  83. Paul M, Ghosh I (2018) Speed-based proximal indicator for right-turn crashes at unsignalized intersections in India. J Transp Eng, Part A: Syst. https://doi.org/10.1061/jtepbs.0000139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Paul M, Ghosh I (2021) Development of conflict severity index for safety evaluation of severe crash types at unsignalized intersections under mixed traffic. Saf Sci 144:105432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Paul M, Ghosh I, Mazharul Haque M (2022) The effects of green signal countdown timer and retiming of signal intervals on dilemma zone related crash risk at signalized intersections under heterogeneous traffic conditions. Saf Sci 154:105862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Peesapati L, Hunter M, Rodgers M (2013) Evaluation of postencroachment time as surrogate for opposing left-turn crashes. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2386:42–51. https://doi.org/10.3141/2386-06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Proctor S, Belcher M, Cook P (2001) Practical road safety auditing. Thomas Telford

    Google Scholar 

  88. Rumar K (1985) “The Role of perceptual and cognitive filters in observed behaviour. In: Evans Sand L, Schwing RC (eds) Human behaviour and traffic safety. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  89. Russo BJ, Savolainen PT (2018) A comparison of freeway median crash frequency, severity, and barrier strike outcomes by median barrier type. Accid Anal Prev 117:216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Rumar K, (2002). Night vision enhancement systems: what should they do and what more do we need to know? (Report No. UMTRI-2002-12). Ann Arbor, MI: the university of Michigan transportation research institute.

  91. Singh D, Das P, Ghosh I (2023) Surrogate safety assessment of traffic facilities under ordered and disordered traffic condition: systematic literature review. KSCE J Civ Eng 27:5008–5029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-023-0979-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Srinivasula SR, Chepuri A, Arkatkar SS, Joshi G (2020) Developing proximal safety indicators for assessment of un-signalized intersection: a case study in Surat city. Transp Lett 12(5):303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1589162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Sereno M, Quigley J, Smith GS (2022) A systematic review of the use of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) to assess implicit biases held by professionals toward client populations. Res Soc Work Pract 32(1):73–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315211009597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Safarpour H, Khorasani-Zavareh D, Mohammadi R (2020) The common road safety approaches: a scoping review and thematic analysis. Chin J Traumatol: Engl Ed 23(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2020.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Shahi S, Brussel M, Grigolon A (2023) Spatial analysis of road traffic crashes and user based assessment of road safety: a case study of Rotterdam. Traffic Inj Prev 24(7):567–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2023.2234530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Singh D, Das P, Ghosh I (2024). A review on surrogate safety measures using extreme value theory. In: transportation research. TPMDC 2022. Lecture notes in civil engineering, vol 434. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6090-3_51

  97. Smith MD, Vicenzino B, Bahr R, Bandholm T, Cooke R, Mendonça LDM et al (2021) Return to sport decisions after an acute lateral ankle sprain injury: introducing the PAASS framework-an international multidisciplinary consensus. Br J Sports Med 55:1270–1276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2021-104087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Shinar D (1978) Psychology on the road: the human factor in safety. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  99. Shinde S, Jadhav S (2024) Advanced adaptive cruise control and vehicle to vehicle communication using LiDAR. Multidiscip Sci J. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Sayed T, Rodriguez F (1999) Accident prediction models for urban unsignalized intersections in British Columbia. Transp Res Rec 1692:30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Taghipour H, Parsa AB, Chauhan RS, Derrible S, Mohammadian A (2022) A novel deep ensemble based approach to detect crashes using sequential traffic data. IATSS Res 46(1):122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2021.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Tarko A, Davis G, Saunier N, Sayed T, Washington S (2009). Surrogate measures of safety. White paper, subcommittee on surrogate measures of safety and committee on safety data evaluation and analysis, transportation research board, Washington

  104. Talbot R, Filtness A, Morris A (2023) ‘Proposing a framework for evidence-based road safety policy-making: connecting crash causation, countermeasures and policy.’ Accid Anal Prev 195:107409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. St-Aubin PG (2011). Traffic safety analysis for urban highway ramps and lane-change bans using accident data and video-based surrogate safety measures. Master of engineering thesis, department of civil engineering and applied mechanics McGill University, Montréal. December 2011

  106. St-aubin P, Saunier N, Miranda-moreno L (2015) Large-scale automated proactive road safety analysis using video data. Transp Res Part C 58:363–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.04.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Turner B, Tziotis M Cairney P, Jurewicz C (2009) Safe system infrastructure national roundtable. Report ARR 370. ARRB Group, Vermont South, Australia

  108. Tingvall C, Haworth N. (1999) Vision zero: an ethical approach to safety and mobility. In: the 6th ITE international conference road safety & traffic enforcement: Beyond 2000, Melbourne.

  109. Tomczuk P, Chrzanowicz M, Mackun T, Budzyński M (2021) Analysis of the results of the audit of lighting parameters at pedestrian crossings in warsaw. Arch Transp 59(3):21–39. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.9554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Vardaki S, Papadimitriou F, Kopelias P (2014) Road safety audit on a major freeway: implementing safety improvements. Eur Transp Res Rev 6(4):387–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-014-0138-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Vedagiri P, Killi DV (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 

  112. Venthuruthiyil SP, Chunchu M (2022) Anticipated collision time (ACT): a two-dimensional surrogate safety indicator for trajectory-based proactive safety assessment. Transp Res Part C: Emerg Technol 139(March):103655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2022.103655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Wang H, Jiang Z, Xu T, Li F (2021) A quantitative approach of subway station passengers’ heterogeneity of decision preference considering personality traits during emergency evacuation. Sustainability 13(22):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Wang W, Guo X, Liu Y, Tang A, Yang Q (2023) Factors affecting unmanned aerial vehicles’ unsafe behaviors and influence mechanism based on social network theory. Transp Res Rec 2677(5):1030–1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221138782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. World Health Organization, (2011). Global plan for the decade of action for road safety 2011–2020

  116. World Health Organization, (2018). Global status report on road safety. Available online: https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2018/English-Summary-GSRRS2018.pdf?ua=1. Accessed Dec 11, 2018

  117. Weihrich H (1982) The TOWS matrix: a tool for situational analysis. Long Range Plan 15(2):54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Wang Q, (2018). Research on the identification of accident-prone point of freeway based on improve accumulated accident curve method (master thesis). Chang’an University, Xi’an.

  119. Wang Y, Li X (2019) Identification of black spots in urban road traffic accidents based on GIS. Commun Sci Technol Heilongjiang 42(11):213–215

    Google Scholar 

  120. Wang X, Chen X (2022) Accurate road information warning framework for intelligent vehicles based on resource allocation. Futur Gener Comput Syst 135:95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2022.04.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Xie K, Ozbay K, Yang H (2019) A multivariate spatial approach to model crash counts by injury severity. Accid Anal Prev 122:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Xu C et al (2013) Predicting crash likelihood and severity on freeways with real-time loop detector data. Accid Anal Prev 57:30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.03.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Xu C et al (2016) Real-time estimation of secondary crash likelihood on freeways using high-resolution loop detector data. Transp Res Part C 71:406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Yang H, Ozbay K, Bartin B (2012) Application of simulation-based traffic conflict analysis for highway safety evaluation. In: 12th WCTR, Portugal, 11–15 July, 2010

  125. Yu H, Li Z, Zhang G, Liu P (2019) A latent class approach for driver injury severity analysis in highway single vehicle crash considering unobserved heterogeneity and temporal influence. Anal Methods Accid Res 24:100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amar.2019.100110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Yu R, Abdel-Aty M (2014) Analyzing crash injury severity for a mountainous freeway incorporating real-time traffic and weather data. Saf Sci 63:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Zhang Lan, Zhao Zihong, Zhang Jinhui, Ding Ling (2020). Research on the strategic choice of brand development of agricultural products in Jilin province driven by financial service innovation. https://doi.org/10.2991/msie-19.2020.65.

  128. Zhang H et al. (2020) Predicting crash frequency for urban expressway considering collision types using real-time traffic data. Journal of Advanced Transportation

  129. Zeng Q, Wang Q, Wang X (2022) An empirical analysis of factors contributing to roadway infrastructure damage from expressway accidents: a Bayesian random parameters Tobit approach. Accid Anal Prev 173(April):106717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Zhang S et al (2022) Hybrid feature selection-based machine learning Classification system for the prediction of injury severity in single and multiple-vehicle accidents. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Zeng Z, Zhu W, Ke R, Ash J, Wang Y, Xu J, Xu X (2017) A generalized nonlinear model-based mixed multinomial logit approach for crash data analysis. Accid Anal Prev 99:51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Zhang C, Lu Y (2023) The state of the art and future prospects’. J Ind Inf Integr J 23(March):100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2021.100224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Zhou H, Xu W, Chen J, Wang W (2020) Evolutionary V2X technologies toward the internet of vehicles: challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the IEEE, vol 108, no 2, pp 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2961937

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous referees for their useful suggestions.

Funding

This work has no funding resource.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India

    Dungar Singh & Pritikana Das

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India

    Indrajit Ghosh

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

  3. Indrajit Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [DS], [PD] and [IG]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [DS] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dungar Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animal performed by any of the authors.

Consent for publication

The authors agreed to transfer the copy right of the article to the publisher (subscription).

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, D., Das, P. & Ghosh, I. Bridging conventional and proactive approaches for road safety analytic modeling and future perspectives. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 9, 128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01426-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01426-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation