Selfish Road Users – Case Studies on Rule Breaking Agents for Traffic Simulation

  • Jörg Dallmeyer
  • Andreas D. Lattner
  • Ingo J. Timm
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7598)

Abstract

Many studies in the context of traffic simulation investigate effects of new regulation strategies on travel times. However, in most cases it is assumed, that these regulations are followed by all actors. This work investigates the effects of non-compliance of simulated road user agents. In particular it is analyzed to what extent rule breaking agents have advantages on the cost of the remaining road users. For evaluation we take into account three different scenarios: Overtaking prohibition for trucks on motorways, bicycles pushing to the front at traffic lights and pedestrians crossing roads in aggressive manner. In all scenarios, the fraction of rule breaking agents is varied. Simulation results show that rule breaking does not always lead to disadvantages for the remaining road users.

Keywords

Traffic Simulation Multiagent-Based Simulation (MABS) Non-Compliance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashton, W.D.: Gap-acceptance problems at a traffic intersection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) 20(2), 130–138 (1971), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346461 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baek, S.K., Minnhagen, P., Bernhardsson, S., Choi, K., Kim, B.J.: Flow improvement caused by agents who ignore traffic rules. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics) 80(1), 016111+ (2009), http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.016111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blue, V.J., Adler, J.L.: Cellular automata microsimulation for modeling bi-directional pedestrian walkways. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 35(3), 293–312 (2001), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V99-41YG51Y-5/2/22693b4ec6fd5d3898831f17d2000bc6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., Lesmo, L.: A game theoretic approach to norms and agents. Cognitive Science Quaterly 2(3/4), 492–512 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarridge, A., Salomaa, K.: A Cellular Automaton Model for Car Traffic with a Slow-to-Stop Rule. In: Maneth, S. (ed.) CIAA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5642, pp. 44–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2009), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02979-0_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dallmeyer, J., Lattner, A.D., Timm, I.J.: From GIS to Mixed Traffic Simulation in Urban Scenarios. In: Liu, J., Quaglia, F., Eidenbenz, S., Gilmore, S. (eds.) 4th International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques, SIMUTools 2011, Barcelona, Spain, March 22-24, pp. 134–143. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), Brüssel (2011) ISBN 978-1-936968-00-8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dallmeyer, J., Lattner, A.D., Timm, I.J.: GIS-based Traffic Simulation using OSM. In: Cervone, G., Lin, J., Waters, N. (eds.) Data Mining for Geoinformatics: Methods and Applications. Springer (accepted, 2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dallmeyer, J., Lattner, A.D., Timm, I.J.: Pedestrian Simulation for Urban Traffic Scenarios. In: Bruzzone, A.G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference 2012. 44rd Summer Simulation Multi-Conference (SummerSim 2012), pp. 414–421. Curran Associates, Inc. (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dallmeyer, J., Schumann, R., Lattner, A.D., Timm, I.J.: Don’t Go with the Ant Flow: Ant-inspired Traffic Routing in Urban Environments. In: Seventh International Workshop on Agents in Traffic and Transportation (ATT 2012), Valencia, Spain (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum, F.: Autonomous agents with norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 69–79 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ehlert, P.A.M., Rothkrantz, L.J.M.: Microscopic traffic simulation with reactive driving agents. ITSC 2001 2001 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Proceedings Cat No01TH8585 40(5), 860–865 (2001), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=948773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emmerich, H., Rank, E.: An improved cellular automaton model for traffic flow simulation. Physica A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics 234(3-4), 676–686 (1997), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TVG-3VSFH3D-1M/2/68da6d108491eafd93924e74226e428a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greenshield, B.D.: A study of traffic capacity. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting Highway Research Board 14 468, 448–477 (1935)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hafstein, S.F., Pottmeier, A., Wahle, J., Schreckenberg, M.: Cellular Automaton Modeling of the Autobahn Traffic in North Rhine-Westphalia. In: Troch, I., Breitenecker, F. (eds.) Proc. of the 4th MATHMOD, pp. 1322–1331 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hennessy, D.A., Wiesenthal, D.L.: Gender, driver aggression, and driver violence: An applied evaluation. Sex Roles 44, 661–676 (2001), http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012246213617, doi:10.1023/A:1012246213617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jason, L.A., Liotta, R.: Pedestrian jaywalking under facilitating and nonfacilitating conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 15(15), 469–473 (1982), http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1308291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, M., Newstead, S., Charlton, J., Oxley, J.: Riding through red lights: The rate, characteristics and risk factors of non-compliant urban commuter cyclists. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43(1), 323–328 (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.08.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson, M., Oxley, J., Cameron, M.: Cyclist bunch riding: A review of the literature. Tech. rep., Monash University Accident Research Centre (January 2009) iSBN: 0-7326-2355-3Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kerner, B.S., Klenov, S.L., Wolf, D.E.: Cellular automata approach to three-phase traffic theory. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 35(47), 9971 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kesting, A., Treiber, M., Helbing, D.: Agents for traffic simulation. Arxiv preprint arXiv08050300 physics.so, 325–356 (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0300
  21. 21.
    King, M.J., Soole, D.W., Ghafourian, A.: Relative risk of illegal pedestrian behaviours. In: Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, pp. 768–778 (2008), http://eprints.qut.edu.au/17630/
  22. 22.
    Knospe, W., Santen, L., Schadschneider, A., Schreckenberg, M.: A realistic two-lane traffic model for highway traffic. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 35(15), 3369–3388 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krauss, S., Wagner, P., Gawron, C.: Continuous limit of the Nagel-Schreckenberg model. Phys. Rev. E 54(4), 3707–3712 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laagland, J.: How to model aggressive behavior in traffic simulation. In: Twente Student Conference on IT, Enschede 3 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lattner, A.D., Dallmeyer, J., Paraskevopoulos, D., Timm, I.J.: Approximation of Pedestrian Effects in Urban Traffic Simulation by Distribution Fitting. In: Troitzsch, K.G., Möhring, M., Lotzmann, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th EUROPEAN Conference on Modelling and Simulation, pp. 574–580 (2012) ISBN 978-0-9564944-4-3Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lattner, A.D., Dallmeyer, J., Timm, I.J.: Learning Dynamic Adaptation Strategies in Agent-Based Traffic Simulation Experiments. In: Klügl, F., Ossowski, S. (eds.) MATES 2011. LNCS, vol. 6973, pp. 77–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nagel, K., Schreckenberg, M.: A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. Journal de Physique I 2(12), 2221–2229 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ottomanelli, M., Caggiani, L., Giuseppe, I., Sassanelli, D.: An Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System for simulation of pedestrians behaviour at unsignalized roadway crossings. In: 14th Online World Conference on Soft Computing in Industrial Application 14 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharkin, B.S.: Road rage: Risk factors, assessment, and intervention strategies. Journal of Counseling and Development 82, 191–199 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Speirs, E., Braidwood, R.: Quadstone paramics v5.0 technical notes. Tech. rep., Quadstone Paramics Ltd. (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tasca, L.: A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. In: Aggressive Driving Issues Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Virkler, M.R.: Prediction and measurement of travel time along pedestrian routes. Transportation Research Record No. 1636, Bicycle and Pedestrian Research 1636, 37–42 (1998) iSSN: 0361-1981, http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1636-06 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wiesenthal, D.L., Hennessy, D., Gibson, P.M.: The driving vengeance questionnaire (dvq): The development of a scale to measure deviant drivers’ attitudes. Violence and Victims 15(2), 115–136 (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yuhara, N., Tajima, J.: Multi-driver agent-based traffic simulation systems for evaluating the effects of advanced driver assistance systems on road traffic accidents. Cognition, Technology & Work 8, 283–300 (2006), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0045-9, doi:10.1007/s10111-006-0045-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhu, H.B., Lei, L., Dai, S.Q.: Two-lane traffic simulations with a blockage induced by an accident car. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 388(14), 2903–2910 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Dallmeyer
    • 1
  • Andreas D. Lattner
    • 1
  • Ingo J. Timm
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Systems and Simulation, Institute of Computer ScienceGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.Business Informatics IUniversity of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations