Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Research Methods in Modern Urban Transportation Systems and Networks pp 129–144Cite as

Speed-Related Surrogate Measures of Road Safety Based on Floating Car Data

Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS,volume 207)

Abstract

To overcome limitations of crash-based analyses of road safety, researchers are looking for surrogate measures of safety. Floating car data (FCD, or probe vehicle data) provides opportunities to extract such measures. The goal of this review is to identify challenges and opportunities regarding using FCD to develop surrogate measures of safety. Specific focus was placed on most frequent speed-related indicators (speed, acceleration, jerk) and their sampling rate, study size, reliability and validity. The review indicated several remaining knowledge gaps; nevertheless, with the current rate of technology development and research, many of these gaps are likely to be resolved quickly. The main conclusion is that nature, benefits and limitations of different FCD sources need to be carefully understood and considered before adopting FCD to derive surrogate measures of safety. Further research and development opportunities exist in the subject area.

Keywords

  • Road safety
  • Floating car data
  • Probe vehicle data
  • Surrogate measures of safety
  • Speed

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Chang A, Saunier N, Laureshyn A (2017) Proactive methods for road safety analysis. SAE International, Warrendale

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bessler S, Paulin T (2013) Literature study on the state of the art of probe data systems in Europe. FTW Telecommunications Research Center, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nilsson G (2004) Traffic safety dimensions and the Power Model to describe the effect of speed on safety. Lund University, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  4. Elvik R (2009) The Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety: Update and new analyses. Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  5. Elvik R (2013) A reparameterisation of the Power Model of the relationship between the speed of traffic and the number of accidents and accident victims. Accid Anal Prev 50:854–860

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Leduc G (2008) Road traffic data: collection methods and applications. European Communities, Luxembourg City

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rose G (2006) Mobile phones as traffic probes: Practices, prospects and issues. Transp Rev 26:275–291

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Berntsen M, Molnár P, Zděnek M (2016) Driving behavior and risk of accident: evidence from Norway. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wang X, Fan T, Chen M, Deng B, Wu B, Tremont P (2015) Safety modeling of urban arterials in Shanghai, China. Accid Anal Prevent 83:57–66

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang X, Fan T, Li W, Yu R, Bullock D, Wu B, Tremont P (2016) Speed variation during peak and off-peak hours on urban arterials in Shanghai. Transp Res Part C 67:84–94

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang X, Zhou Q, Quddus M, Fan T, Fang S (2018) Speed, speed variation and crash relationships for urban arterials. Accid Anal Prev 113:236–243

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Jurewicz C, Espada I, Makwasha T, Han C, Alawi H, Ambros J (2017) Validation and applicability of floating car speed data for road safety. In: Australasian road safety conference, Perth

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bekhor S, Lotan T, Gitelman V, Morik S (2013) Free-flow travel speed analysis and monitoring at the national level using global positioning system measurements. J Transp Eng ASCE 139:1235–1243

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Hrubeš P, Blümelová J (2015) Comparative analysis for floating car and loop detectors data. In: 22nd ITS World Congress, Bordeaux

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pascale A, Deflorio F, Nicoli M, Dalla Chiara B, Pedroli M (2015) Motorway speed pattern identification from floating vehicle data for freight applications. Transp Res Part C 51:104–119

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Aarts LT, Bijleveld FD, Stipdonk HL (2015) Usefulness of ʼfloating car speed dataʼ for proactive road safety analyses: analysis of TomTom speed data and comparison with loop detector speed data of the provincial road network in the Netherlands. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam

    Google Scholar 

  17. Laporte S (ed) (2010) Design of a naturalistic riding study-implementation plan. 2BESAFE project deliverable 5

    Google Scholar 

  18. Backer-Grøndahl A, Phillips R, Sagberg F, Touliou K, Gatscha M (2009) Topics and applications of previous and current naturalistic driving studies. PROLOGUE project deliverable 1.1

    Google Scholar 

  19. Welsh R, Reed S, Talbot R, Morris A (2010) Data collection, analysis methods and equipment for naturalistic studies and requirements for the different application areas. PROLOGUE project deliverable 2.1

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bärgman J (2015) On the analysis of naturalistic driving data: development and evaluation of methods for analysis of naturalistic driving data from a variety of data sources. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reinau KH, Andersen CS, Agerholm N (2016) A new method for identifying hazardous road locations using GPS and accelerometer. In: 23rd ITS World Congress, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  22. Toledo T, Musicant O, Lotan T (2008) In-vehicle data recorders for monitoring and feedback on drivers’ behavior. Transp Res Part C 16:320–331

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Ambros J, Valentová V, Gogolín O, Andrášik R, Kubeček J, Bíl M (2017) Improving the self-explaining performance of Czech national roads. Transp Res Rec 2635:62–70

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Bagdadi O, Várhelyi A (2011) Jerky driving—an indicator of accident proneness? Accid Anal Prev 43:1359–1363

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Punzo V, Borzacchiello MT, Ciuffo B (2011) On the assessment of vehicle trajectory data accuracy and application to the Next Generation SIMulation (NGSIM) program data. Transp Res Part C 19:1243–1262

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Joubert JW, de Beer D, de Koker N (2016) Combining accelerometer data and contextual variables to evaluate the risk of driver behaviour. Transp Res Part F 41:80–96

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Carsten O, Kircher K, Jamson S (2013) Vehicle-based studies of driving in the real world: The hard truth? Accid Anal Prev 58:162–174

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Valero-Mora PM, Tontsch A, Welsh R, Morris A, Reed S, Touliou K, Margaritis D (2013) Is naturalistic driving research possible with highly instrumented cars? Lessons learnt in three research centres. Accid Anal Prev 58:187–194

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Kraft WH, Homburger WS, Pline JL (eds) (2019) Traffic engineering handbook, 6th edn. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  30. Narasimha Murthy AS, Mohle HR (2001) Transportation engineering basics, 2nd edn. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  31. PIARC (2003) Road Safety Manual: recommendations from the World Road Association (PIARC). Route2market, Harrogate

    Google Scholar 

  32. Transportation Research Board (2011) Modeling operating speed: synthesis report. Transportation Research Board, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  33. Smith BL, Zhang H, Fontaine M, Green M (2003) Cell-phone probes as an ATMS tool. Smart Travel Laboratory, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vandenberghe W, Vanhauwaert E, Verbrugge S, Moerman I, Demeester P (2012) Feasibility of expanding traffic monitoring systems. IET Intel Transport Syst 6:347–354

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Srinivasan KK, Jovanis PP (1996) Determination of number of probe vehicles required for reliable travel time measurement in urban network. Transp Res Rec 1537:15–22

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Hakkert AS, Gitelman V (eds) (2007) Road safety performance indicators: manual. SafetyNet project deliverable 3.8

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ambros J, Kyselý M (2016) Free-flow vs car-following speeds: Does the difference matter? Adv Transp Studies 40:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pline JL (ed) (1992) Traffic engineering handbook, 4th edn. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wang J, Dixon K, Li H, Hunter M (2006) Operating-speed model for low-speed urban tangent streets based on in-vehicle global positioning system data. Transp Res Rec 1961:24–33

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. TomTom traffic index: measuring congestion worldwide. https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/trafficindex/about

  41. Diependaele K, Riguelle F, Temmerman P (2016) Speed behavior indicators based on floating car data: results of a pilot study in Belgium. Transportation Research Procedia 14:2074–2082

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  42. Spasovic LN, Dimitrijevic B, Kim K (2013) Probe vehicle data comparative validation study—New Jersey and New York—final report. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rapolu S, Kumar A (2015) Comparing arterial speeds from “big-data” sources in Southeast Florida (Bluetooth, HERE and INRIX). In: 15th TRB national transportation planning applications conference, Atlantic City

    Google Scholar 

  44. Clergue L, Buttignol V (2014) Using GPS data in favour of traffic knowledge. In: Transport Research Arena, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  45. De Boer G, Krootjes P (2012) The quality of floating car data benchmarked: an alternative to roadside equipment? In: 19th ITS World Congress, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  46. Brockfeld E, Lorkowski S, Mieth P, Wagner P (2007) Benefits and limits of recent floating car data technology—an evaluation study. In: 11th WCTR Conference, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  47. INRIX I-95 VPP data summary validation. http://inrix.com/case-studies/inrix-i-95-vpp-data-summary-validation-case-study/

  48. Espada I, Bennett P (2015) Probe data and its application in traffic studies. In: IPWEA/IFME conference, Rotorua

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lattimer CR, Glotzbach G (2012) Evaluation of third-party travel time data in Tallahassee. FL. In ITS America, National Harbor

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bar-Gera H (2007) Evaluation of a cellular phone-based system for measurements of traffic speeds and travel times: a case study from Israel. Transp Res Part C 15:380–391

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  51. Yim Y (2003) The state of cellular probes. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sagberg F, Selpi S, Piccinini GFB, Engström J (2015) A review of research on driving styles and road safety. Hum Factors 57:1248–1275

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  53. Dingus TA, McGehee DV, Manakkal N, Jahns SK, Carney C, Hankey JM (1997) Human factors field evaluation of automotive headway maintenance/collision warning devices. Hum Factors 39:216–229

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  54. Feng F, Bao S, Sayer JR, Flannagan C, Manser M, Wunderlich R (2017) Can vehicle longitudinal jerk be used to identify aggressive drivers? An examination using naturalistic driving data. Accid Anal Prev 104:125–136

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  55. Kiefer RJ, Flannagan CA, Jerome CJ (2006) Time-to-collision judgments under realistic driving conditions. Hum Factors 48:334–345

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  56. Markkula G, Engström J, Lodin J, Bärgman J, Victor T (2016) A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. Accid Anal Prevent 95:209–226

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  57. Chevalier A, Chevalier AJ, Clarke E, Coxon K, Brown J, Rogers K, Boufous S, Ivers R, Keay L (2016) Naturalistic rapid deceleration data: drivers aged 75 years and older. Data Brief 9:909–916

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  58. Chevalier A, Coxon K, Chevalier AJ, Clarke E, Rogers K, Brown J, Boufous S, Ivers R, Keay L (2017) Predictors of older drivers’ involvement in rapid deceleration events. Accid Anal Prev 98:312–319

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  59. Keay L, Munoz B, Duncan DD, Hahn D, Baldwin K, Turano KA, Munro CA, Bandeen-Roche K, West SK (2013) Older drivers and rapid deceleration events: Salisbury eye evaluation driving study. Accid Anal Prev 58:279–285

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  60. Tselentis DI, Yannis G, Vlahogianni EI (2017) Innovative motor insurance schemes: a review of current practices and emerging challenges. Accid Anal Prev 98:139–148

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  61. Stavrakaki A-M, Tselentis DI, Barmpounakis EN, Vlahogianni EI, Yannis G (2019) How much driving data do we need to assess driver behavior? In: 98th transportation research board annual meeting, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ellison AB, Greaves SP, Bliemer MCJ (2015) Driver behaviour profiles for road safety analysis. Accid Anal Prev 76:118–132

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  63. Aichinger C, Nitsche P, Stütz R, Harnisch M (2016) Using low-cost smartphone sensor data for locating crash risk spots in a road network. Transp Res Procedia 14:2015–2024

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  64. Baldwin KC, Duncan DD, West SK (2004) The driver monitor system: a means of assessing driver performance. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest 25:269–277

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hickman JS, Hanowski RJ (2011) Use of a video monitoring approach to reduce at-risk driving behaviors in commercial vehicle operations. Transp Res Part F 14:189–198

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  66. Johnson DA, Trivedi MM (2011) Driving style recognition using a smartphone as a sensor platform. In: 14th international IEEE conference on intelligent transportation systems, Washington (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kamla J, Parry T, Dawson A (2019) Analysing truck harsh braking incidents to study round-about accident risk. Accid Anal Prev 122:365–377

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  68. Musicant O, Botzer A, Laufer I, Collet C (2018) Relationship between kinematic and physiological indices during braking events of different intensities. Hum Factors 60:415–427

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  69. Paefgen J, Kehr F, Zhai Y, Michahelles F (2012) Driving behavior analysis with smart-phones: insights from a controlled field study. In: 11th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, Ulm

    Google Scholar 

  70. Ryder B, Gahr B, Egolf P, Dahlinger A, Wortmann F (2017) Preventing traffic accidents with in-vehicle decision support systems—the impact of accident hotspot warnings on driver behaviour. Decis Support Syst 99:64–74

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  71. Naude C, Serre T, Dubois-Lounis M, Fournier J-Y, Lechner D, Guilbot M, Le-doux V (2019) Acquisition and analysis of road incidents based on vehicle dynamics. Accid Anal Prev 130:117–124

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  72. Pande A, Chand S, Saxena N, Dixit V, Loy J, Wolshon B, Kentda JD (2017) A preliminary investigation of the relationships between historical crash and naturalistic driving. Accid Anal Prev 101:107–116

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  73. Dingus TA, Klauer SG, Neale VL, Petersen A, Lee SE, Sudweeks JD, Perez MA, Hankey J, Ramsey DJ, Gupta S, Bucher C, Doerzaph ZR, Jermeland J, Knipling RR (2006) The 100-car naturalistic driving study, phase II—results of the 100-car field experiment. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  74. Händel P, Skog I, Wahlström J, Bonawiede F, Welch R, Ohlsson J, Ohlsson M (2014) Insurance telematics: opportunities and challenges with the smartphone solution. IEEE intelligent transportation systems magazine, pp 57–70

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ziakopoulos A, Tselentis D, Kontaxi A, Yannis G (2020) A critical overview of driver recording tools. J Safety Res 72:203–212

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  76. Stipancic J, Miranda-Moreno L, Saunier N (2018) Vehicle manoeuvers as surrogate safety measures: Extracting data from the GPS-enabled smartphones of regular drivers. Accid Anal Prev 115:160–169

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  77. Mousavi S-M, Parr SA, Pande A, Wolshon B (2015) Identifying high-risk roadways through jerk-cluster analysis. In: 2015 road safety and simulation international conference, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  78. Andersen CS, Reinau KH, Agerholm N (2016) The relationship between road characteristics and speed collected from floating car data. J Traffic Transp Eng 4:291–298

    Google Scholar 

  79. Gitelman V, Pesahov F, Carmel R, Bekhor S (2016) The identification of infrastructure characteristics influencing travel speeds on single-carriageway roads to promote self-explaining roads. Transp Res Procedia 14:4160–4169

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  80. Gaca S, Kieć M (2016) Speed management for local and regional rural roads. Transp Res Procedia 14:4170–4179

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  81. Bassani M, Cirillo C, Molinari S, Tremblay J (2016) Random effect models to predict operating speed distribution on rural two-lane highways. J Transp Eng ASCE 142:04016019

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The chapter was produced with the financial support of Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under the National Sustainability Program I project of Transport R&D Centre (LO1610), using the research infrastructure from the Operational Program Research and Development for Innovation (CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0064).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CDV—Transport Research Centre, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jiří Ambros & Veronika Valentová

  2. Transport Accident Commission, Melbourne, Australia

    Chris Jurewicz

  3. Australian Road Research Board, Sydney, Australia

    Anna Chevalier

Authors
  1. Jiří Ambros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Jurewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Chevalier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Veronika Valentová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiří Ambros .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland

    Prof. Elżbieta Macioszek

  2. Faculty of Transport and Aviation Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland

    Prof. Grzegorz Sierpiński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ambros, J., Jurewicz, C., Chevalier, A., Valentová, V. (2021). Speed-Related Surrogate Measures of Road Safety Based on Floating Car Data. In: Macioszek, E., Sierpiński, G. (eds) Research Methods in Modern Urban Transportation Systems and Networks. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 207. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71708-7_9

Download citation

search

Navigation