Observing Traffic – Utilizing a Ground Based LiDAR and Observation Protocols at a T-Junction in Germany

  • André DietrichEmail author
  • Johannes Ruenz
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)


Introducing automated vehicles onto current urban traffic conditions is a demanding task. While trajectory and maneuver planning algorithms needs to cope with complex road structures, the automation needs to deal with another volatile element – human road users. Understanding how traffic participants behave nowadays is indispensable to ensure that automated vehicles can react appropriately to other road users. This paper aims to provide an overview of observation methodologies capable of quantifying different aspects of road user behavior. An observation study of a T-junction in German rush-hour traffic using a ground based LiDAR and an HTML app for manual observations is presented. In normal traffic conditions drivers follows their road prioritization quite strictly. Once congestions emerge on the main road this behavior changes: prioritized drivers yield their right of way to let other vehicles turn onto the main road by increasing gap sizes, sometimes accompanied by flashing their headlights to inform the turning driver of the yielding behavior. Overall, the method of using a ground based LiDAR in combination with human observers has a high potential to quantitatively describe perceivable traffic occurrences while complying with data privacy laws.


Traffic observation LiDAR Traffic interaction Automated vehicle interaction Observation app 



This work is a part of the interACT project. interACT has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research & innovation programme under grant agreement no 723395. Content reflects only the authors’ view and European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.


  1. 1.
    §1 I StVO. Original text in German: “Die Teilnahme am Straßenverkehr erfordert ständige Vorsicht und gegenseitige Rücksicht”. Accessed 28 May 2018
  2. 2.
    interACT deliverable D1.1. Accessed 28 May 2018
  3. 3.
    Saunier N, Sayed T, Ismail K (2010) Large scale automated analysis of vehicle interactions and collisions. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2147:42–50. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tarko AP, Ariyur KB, Romero MA, Bandaru VK, Lizarazo CG (2016) TScan: stationary LiDAR for traffic and safety studies—object detection and tracking (Joint Transportation Research Program Publication No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2016/24). West Lafayette, Purdue University, IN.
  5. 5.
    Fuest T, Sorokin L, Bellem H, Bengler K (2017) Taxonomy of traffic situations for the interaction between automated vehicles and human road users. In: Stanton N (eds) Advances in human aspects of transportation, AHFE. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 597. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rasouli A, Kotseruba Y, Tsotsos J (2017) Agreeing to cross: how drivers and pedestrians communicate. In: 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), Los Angeles, CA, pp 264–269.
  7. 7.
    Imbsweiler J, Palyafári R, Puente León F, Deml B (2017) Untersuchung des entscheidungsverhaltens in kooperativen verkehrssituationen am beispiel einer engstelle. Automatisierungstechnik 65:477–488. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vollrath M, Huemer AK, Teller C, Likhacheva A, Fricke J (2016) Do German drivers use their smartphones safely? - Not really! Accid Anal Prev 96:29–38. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Šucha M (2014) Road users’ strategies and communication: driver pedestrian interaction. In: Proceedings 5th conference transport solutions from research to deployment, transport research Arena, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merat N, Louw T, Madigan R, Wilbrink M, Schieben A (2018) What externally presented in-formation do VRUs require when interacting with fully automated road transport systems in shared space? Accid Anal Prev. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Portouli E, Nathanael D, Marmaras N (2014) Drivers’ communicative interactions: on-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems. Ergonomics 57(12):1795–1805. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Connelly ML, Conaglen MH, Parsonson BS, Isler RB (1998) Child pedestrians’ crossing gap thresholds. Accid Anal Prev 30(4):443–453. Scholar
  13. 13.
    General data protection regulation. Accessed 28 May 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany
  2. 2.Chassis Systems Control, Robert Bosch GmbHAbstattGermany

Personalised recommendations