CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Traffic control and managementTraffic and Road SafetyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

Safety and Sustainable Development of Automated Driving in Mixed-Traffic Urban Areas—Considering Vulnerable Road Users and Network Efficiency

Open access
Pauwels, Alex, Pourmohammad-Zia, Nadia, Schulte, Frederik·2022·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su142013486
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Next to environmental aspects, establishing areas for safe and economically viable automated driving in mixed-traffic settings is one major challenge for sustainable development of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). This work investigates safety in the interactions between AVs, human-driven vehicles, and vulnerable road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, within a simulated urban environment in the Dutch city of Rotterdam. New junction and pedestrian models are introduced, and virtual AVs with an occlusion-aware driving system are deployed to deliver cargo autonomously. The safety of applying this autonomous cargo delivery service is assessed using a large set of Surrogate Safety Indicators (SSIs). Furthermore, Macroscopic Fundamental Diagrams (MFDs) and travel time loss are incorporated to evaluate the network efficiency. By assessing the impact of various measures involving Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I), Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communications, infrastructure modifications, and driving behavior, we show that traffic safety and network efficiency can be achieved in a living lab setting for the considered case. Our findings further suggest that V2X gets implemented, new buildings are not placed close to intersections, and the speed limit of non-arterial roads is lowered.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su142013486

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The introduction of AVs is considered a chance to increase the allure of public transportation by enabling broad dissemination of shared vehicles that might support the mass rapid transit network.

    “By enabling a broad dissemination of shared vehicles that might support the mass rapid transit network, the introduction of AVs is considered as a chance to increase the allure of public transportation.”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [72]

    Section 6 (Case Study; page unavailable) describes a proposed route designed for autonomous public transport, and Section 2.2 (Operational Efficiency; page unavailable) mentions AV-based mobility services. Neither passage says that widespread shared AVs would support a mass rapid transit network or make public transportation more attractive. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Improving public transportation can persuade more people to use sustainable means of transportation instead of private vehicles, lowering traffic congestion and emissions.

    “By improving public transportation, this attempts to persuade more people to utilize sustainable means of transportation instead of private vehicles, so lowering traffic congestion and emissions [43,44,67,68,72].”

    From Assessing the Role of Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Areas: A Systematic Review of Literature (2024) · cites this paper as [72]

    Section 6 mentions a proposed route designed for autonomous public transport, but does not discuss improving the service or persuading people to leave private vehicles. Searches for a shift from private vehicles and for reduced congestion and emissions found no passage connecting those outcomes to public transport; Section 2.2 instead discusses the operational efficiency of autonomous vehicles. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Wachenfeld, W.H.K. How Stochastic Can Help to Introduce Automated Driving. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, 2017.
  2. Mahmud, S.S.; Ferreira, L.; Hoque, M.S.; Tavassoli, A. Application of proximal surrogate indicators for safety evaluation: A review of recent developments and research needs. IATSS Res. 2017, 41, 153-163. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Johnsson, C.; Laureshyn, A.; De Ceunynck, T. In search of surrogate safety indicators for vulnerable road users: A review of surrogate safety indicators. Transp. Rev. 2018, 38, 765-785. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Guido, G.; Vitale, A.; Astarita, V.; Giofrè, V.P. Comparison analysis between real accident locations and simulated risk areas in an urban road network. Safety 2019, 5, 60. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Virdi, N.; Grzybowska, H.; Waller, S.T.; Dixit, V. A safety assessment of mixed fleets with connected and autonomous vehicles using the surrogate safety assessment module. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 131, 95-111. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Essa, M.; Sayed, T. Simulated traffic conflicts: Do they accurately represent field-measured conflicts? Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2514, 48-57. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Li, S.; Xiang, Q.; Ma, Y.; Gu, X.; Li, H. Crash risk prediction modeling based on the traffic conflict technique and a microscopic simulation for freeway interchange merging areas. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1157. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Axelsson, E.; Wilson, T. Microscopic Simulation as an Evaluation Tool for the Road Safety of Vulnerable Road Users. Master's Thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, 2016.
  9. Tafidis, P.; Pirdavani, A.; Brijs, T.; Farah, H. Can automated vehicles improve cyclist safety in urban areas? Safety 2019, 5, 57. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Fancello, G.; Carta, M.; Fadda, P. Road intersections ranking for road safety improvement: Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Transp. Policy 2019, 80, 188-196. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Bulla-Cruz, L.A.; Laureshyn, A.; Lyons, L. Event-based road safety assessment: A novel approach towards risk microsimulation in roundabouts. Measurement 2020, 165, 108192. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Budan, G.; Hayatleh, K.; Morrey, D.; Ball, P.; Shadbolt, P. An analysis of vehicle-to-infrastructure communications for non- signalised intersection control under mixed driving behaviour. Analog Integr. Circuits Signal Process. 2018, 95, 415-422. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Wang, Q.; Li, L.; Hou, D.; Li, Z.; Hu, J. Simulation study on the effect of automated driving in a road network environment. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 14, 228-232. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Lu, Q.; Tettamanti, T.; Varga, I. Impacts of autonomous vehicles on the urban fundamental diagram. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure, Zadar, Croatia, 17-19 May 2018.
  15. Lu, Q.; Tettamanti, T.; Hörcher, D.; Varga, I. The impact of autonomous vehicles on urban traffic network capacity: An experimental analysis by microscopic traffic simulation. Transp. Lett. 2020, 12, 540-549. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Atasoy, B.; Schulte, F.; Steenkamp, A. Platform-based collaborative routing using dynamic prices as incentives. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020, 10, 670-679. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Beirigo, B.A.; Schulte, F.; Negenborn, R.R. A learning-based optimization approach for autonomous ridesharing platforms with service-level contracts and on-demand hiring of idle vehicles. Transp. Sci. 2022, 56, 677-703. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Beirigo, B.A.; Negenborn, R.R.; Alonso-Mora, J.; Schulte, F. A business class for autonomous mobility-on-demand: Modeling service quality contracts in dynamic ridesharing systems. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2022, 136, 103520. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Arun, A.; Haque, M.M.; Bhaskar, A.; Washington, S.; Sayed, T. A systematic mapping review of surrogate safety assessment using traffic conflict techniques. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 153, 106016. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Elvik, R. Some difficulties in defining populations of "entities" for estimating the expected number of accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1988, 20, 261-275. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Hauer, E.; Hakkert, A. Extent and some implications of incomplete accident reporting. Transp. Res. Rec. 1988, 1185, 17.
  22. Saunier, N.; Sayed, T. Automated analysis of road safety with video data. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2019, 57-64. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Hydén, C. Traffic conflicts technique: State-of-the-art. Traffic Saf. Work Video Process. 1996, 37, 3-14.
  24. Svensson, Å.; Hydén, C. Estimating the severity of safety related behaviour. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2006, 38, 379-385. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Ozbay, K.; Yang, H.; Bartin, B.; Mudigonda, S. Derivation and validation of new simulation-based surrogate safety measure. Transp. Res. Rec. 2008, 2083, 105-113. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Allen, B.L.; Shin, B.T.; Cooper, P.J. Analysis of Traffic Conflicts and Collisions. Transp. Res. Rec. 1978, 667, 67-74.
  27. Almqvist, S.; Hyden, C.; Risser, R. Use of speed limiters in cars for increased safety and a better environment. Transp. Res. Rec. 1991, 1318, 34-39.
  28. Chan, C.-Y. Defining safety performance measures of driver-assistance systems for intersection left-turn conflicts. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Meguro-ku, Japan, 13-15 June 2006; pp. 25-30.
  29. Cafiso, S.; Garcia, A.G.; Cavarra, R.; Rojas, M. Crosswalk safety evaluation using a pedestrian risk index as traffic conflict measure. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Road safety and Simulation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 14-16 September 2011; pp. 1-15.
  30. Laureshyn, A.; de Goede, M.; Saunier, N.; Fyhri, A. Cross-comparison of three surrogate safety methods to diagnose cyclist safety problems at intersections in Norway. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 105, 11-20. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Risser, R.; Tamme, W.; Steinbauer, J.; Kaba, A. Handbuch zur Erhebung von Verkehrskonflikten mit Anleitungen zur Beobachter- schulung. Kleine Fachb. Des Kurat. Für Verk. (KFV) 1991, 28, 1-173.
  32. El-Basyouny, K.; Sayed, T. Safety performance functions using traffic conflicts. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51, 160-164. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Kočárková, D. Traffic conflict techniques in Czech Republic. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 53, 1028-1033. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Kulmala, R. The Finnish traffic conflict technique. In International Calibration Study of Traffic Conflict Techniques; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984; pp. 97-105.
  35. Muhlrad, N.; Dupre, G. The French Conflict Technique. In International Calibration Study of Traffic Conflicts. Proceedings of the Nato Advanced Research Workshop; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984.
  36. Baguley, C. The British traffic conflict technique. In International Calibration Study of Traffic Conflict Techniques; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984; pp. 59-73.
  37. Helbing, D. Derivation of a fundamental diagram for urban traffic flow. Eur. Phys. J. B 2009, 70, 229-241. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Lin, X.; Zhang, J.; Shang, J.; Wang, Y.; Yu, H.; Zhang, X. Decision making through occluded intersections for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, 27-30 October 2019; pp. 2449-2455.
  39. Bouton, M.; Nakhaei, A.; Fujimura, K.; Kochenderfer, M.J. Scalable decision making with sensor occlusions for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), Brisbane, Australia, 21-25 May 2018; pp. 2076-2081.
  40. Hubmann, C.; Becker, M.; Althoff, D.; Lenz, D.; Stiller, C. Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11-14 June 2017; pp. 1671-1678.
  41. Hennessy, D.A.; Wiesenthal, D.L. Traffic congestion, driver stress, and driver aggression. Aggress. Behav. Off. J. Int. Soc. Res. Aggress. 1999, 25, 409-423. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Alhajyaseen, W.K. The integration of conflict probability and severity for the safety assessment of intersections. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2015, 40, 421-430. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pauwels, A., Pourmohammad-Zia, N., & Schulte, F.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • Department of Maritime & Transport Technology, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Schulte, Frederik
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-10-19
Volume
14
Issue
20
Pages
13486
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su142013486
OpenAlex
W4306857278
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • i-CAVE Dynamic Fleet Management (P14-18 project 3)
  • The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  • domain Applied and Engineering Sciences (TTW)
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 › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
autonomous driving, mixed traffic, vulnerable road users, cyclists, pedestrians, macroscopic fundamental diagram, travel time loss, network efficiency, vehicle-to-everything communication, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, living labs, pedestrian models, speed limits, Rotterdam

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