Effects of Individual Differences on Driving Behavior and Traffic Flow Characteristics
Abstract
Studying driving behavior has been considered an important approach to identifying solutions to increase roadway level of service, reduce roadway traffic crashes, improve vehicle designs, and develop in-vehicle safety devices. The purpose of this research was to get insight into the effect of individual differences on driving behavior and traffic flow characteristics. A method of integrating driving simulators and traffic simulation was developed to investigate the effects of driving behavior on traffic flow. First, a cluster analysis was performed to classify drivers into three categories: aggressive, conservative, and moderate. Second, the driving behavior parameters of the three types of drivers were calibrated for traffic simulation models using the experimental data collected in a driving simulator. Then the effects of driving behavior on traffic flow were analyzed by traffic simulation techniques. The results show that the roadways with aggressive drivers have the highest flow rate but least traffic flow stability. Hence, to maintain roadway level of service and improve traffic safety, it is necessary to develop public training and education campaigns to reach out to aggressive drivers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Unstable traffic flow can arise from differences in cognitive and judgment abilities between AVs and non-AVs, as well as from driver behavior characteristics influenced by ODD.
“Numerous studies have concluded that unstable traffic flow can arise from differences in cognitive and judgment abilities between AVs and non-AVs, as well as from driver behavior characteristics influenced by ODD [11][12][13].”
From Evaluation of Autonomous Driving Safety by Operational Design Domains (ODD) in Mixed Traffic (2024) · cites this paper as [13]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluation of Autonomous Driving Safety by Operational Design Domains (ODD) in Mixed Traffic
Kim, H., Ko, J., Oh, C., & Kim, S. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16229672 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rong, J., Mao, K., & Ma, J.
- Affiliations
- Beijing University of Technology (CN)
- Texas Department of Transportation (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mao, Kejun
- Venue
- Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 2248
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 0361-1981 (ISSN-L)
- 2169-4052
- OpenAlex
- W2139637441
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 3.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Traffic control and management
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Evacuation and Crowd Dynamics
- Keywords
- aggressive drivers, traffic flow characteristics, traffic flow stability, driver classification, traffic simulation model calibration, driving simulator data, road safety, driver training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review