مقایسه ایمنی عابر پیاده در تداخل با اتومبیل‌ها و موتورسیکلت‌ها بر اساس شاخص‌های تداخلی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد، گروه راه و ترابری دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 عضو هیئت علمی دانشکده مهندسی عمران و محیط زیست دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

عابران پیاده در بخش­هایی مانند تقاطع های بدون چراغ بعضاً در ریسک بالایی قرار می­گیرند. عابران در این تقاطع­ها با وسایل نقلیه مختلفی از جمله اتومبیل ها و موتورسیکلت ها تداخل دارند. در این تحقیق با استفاده از شاخص­های تداخلی زمان تا تصادف و زمان پس از تخطی، ایمنی عابران پیاده در تداخل با این دو نوع وسیله مقایسه می­شود. تقاطع بدون چراغ وصال-بزرگمهر در تهران برای مطالعه مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. برای بررسی­های آماری، از تحلیل آنووای یک طرفه استفاده شد. تعداد مشاهدات برای هر کدام از متغیرهای وابسته زمان تا تصادف و زمان پس از تخطی به ترتیب 758 و 791 مشاهده هستند. میانگین لگاریتم شاخص زمان تا تصادف در موتورسیکلت ها 03/0 کمتر از اتومبیل ها بود. همچنین میانگین لگاریتم شاخص زمان پس از تخطی در وسایل نقلیه نیز 09/0 کمتر از موتورسیکلت­هاست. از شاخص زمان تا تصادف، برای شناسایی وضعیت­های دارای پتانسیل خطر و از شاخص زمان پس از تخطی برای شناسایی وضعیت­های بحرانی برای عابران پیاده استفاده شده است. چون شاخص زمان تا تصادف، در تداخل موتورسیکلت با عابر، کمتر است، بنابراین موتورسیکلت­ها، پتانسیل خطر بالاتری را برای عابران به وجود می­آورند. اما چون شاخص زمان پس از تخطی در تداخل عابر و اتومبیل بدتر است، اتومبیل­ها، احتمال ایجاد شرایط بحرانی را برای عابران پیاده افزایش می­دهند.  

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Assessment of the Pedestrian Safety in Conflict With Cars and Motorcycles at Non-signalized Intersections Using TTC and PET

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Shafaati 1
  • A. M. Boroujerdian 2
1 Graduated, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Pedestrians are subjected to high levels of risk at non-signalized intersections. Pedestrians at these intersections have conflicts with different types of vehicles such as motorcycles and cars. In this paper, pedestrian safety is compared between those two groups of vehicles using Time to Collision (TTC) as well as the Post Encroachment Time (PET). Data were collected from an intersection called Vesal-Bozorgmehr in Tehran. The one-way ANOVA was used to compare those two groups. The number of observations for each TTC and PET being the dependent variable was 758 and 791 respectively. Analyses indicated that LogTTC in conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians is 0.03 units more than conflicts between motorcycles and pedestrians and LogPET in conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians is 0.09 units lower than conflicts between motorcycles and pedestrians. TTC is used for identification of situations being potentially dangerous for pedestrians and PET is used for identification of critical situations for pedestrians. As TTC for the conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles is lower than that of for pedestrians and vehicles, motorcycles potentially cause more dangerous situations for pedestrians whereas when it comes to PET, vehicles have lower PET than motorcycles, so vehicles are more able to make critical situations for pedestrians.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • edestrian Safety
  • Non-signalized Intersections
  • Post Encroachment Time
  • Time to Collision

خیری، ر.، (1396)، "مدل تداخل موتورسیکلت و عابر پیاده در تقاطع بدون چراغ"، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، استاد راهنما: امین میرزا بروجردیان، تهران: دانشکده فنی- مهندسی، گروه عمران و محیط زیست، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

 

-Akin, D., & Sisiopiku, V. P., (2007), “Modeling Interactions Between Pedestrians and Turning Vehicles at Signalized Crosswalks Operating Under Combined Pedestrian–Vehicle Interval”. In 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

 

-Beitel, D., Stipancic, J., Manaugh, K., & Miranda-Moreno, L., (2018), “Assessing safety of shared space using cyclist-pedestrian interactions and automated video conflict analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 65, pp.710-724.

 

-Boufous, S., Hatfield, J., & Grzebieta, R. (2018), “The impact of environmental factors on cycling speed on shared paths”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 110, pp.171-176.

 

-Chen, P., Zeng, W., Yu, G., & Wang, Y., (2017), “Surrogate safety analysis of pedestrian-vehicle conflict at intersections using unmanned aerial vehicle videos. Journal of advanced transportation.

 

-Cheng, W., Zhang, N., Li, W., & Xi, J., (2014), Modeling and application of pedestrian safety conflict index at signalized intersections. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society.

 

-Chin, H. C., & Quek, S. T., (1997), “Measurement of traffic conflicts. Safety Science, 26(3), pp.169-185.

 

-Combs, T. S., Sandt, L. S., Clamann, M. P., & McDonald, N. C., (2018), “Automated vehicles and pedestrian safety: exploring the promise and limits of pedestrian detection”. American journal of preventive medicine.

 

-Fu, T., Miranda-Moreno, L., & Saunier, N., (2018), “A novel framework to evaluate pedestrian safety at non-signalized locations”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 111, pp.23-33.

 

-Haworth, N., & Debnath, A. K. (2013), “How similar are two-unit bicycle and motorcycle crashes?”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 58, pp.15-25.

 

-Haworth, N., Schramm, A., & Debnath, A. K., (2014), “An observational study of conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians in the city Centre”. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 25(4), pp.31.

 

-Ismail, K., Sayed, T., & Saunier, N., (2010), “Automated analysis of pedestrian-vehicle: conflicts context for before-and-after studies”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2198), pp.52-64.

 

-Jittrapirom, P., Knoflacher, H., & Mailer, M., (2017), The conundrum of the motorcycle in the mix of sustainable urban transport. Transportation research procedia, 25, pp.4873-4894.

 

-Kim, W., Kim, G. J., & Lee, D., (2016), “Estimating potential conflicts between right-turn-on-red vehicles and pedestrians at crosswalks”. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 20(2), pp.226-240.

 

-Kraay, J. H., van der Horst, A. R. A., & Oppe, S., (2013), “Manual conflict observation technique Doctor”. Swov, Izf-Tno and Foundation Road safety for all, The Netherlands, Foundation Road safety for all Report, 1.

 

-Laureshyn, A., de Goede, M., Saunier, N., & Fyhri, A., (2017), “Cross-comparison of three surrogate safety methods to diagnose cyclist safety problems at intersections in Norway”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 105, pp.11-20.

 

-Laureshyn, A., Svensson, Å., & Hydén, C., (2010), “Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioral data: Theoretical framework and first implementation”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), pp.1637-1646.

 

-Laureshyn, A., Varhelyi, A., & Svensson, Å., (2015), InDeV: In-Depth understanding of accident causation for Vulnerable road users, Project Plan. Lund University, Lund, Sverige.

 

-Lin, M. I. B., & Huang, Y. P., (2017), “The impact of walking while using a smartphone on pedestrians’ awareness of roadside events”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 101, 87-96.

 

-Lord, D., (1996), “Analysis of pedestrian conflicts with left-turning traffic”. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1538), pp.61-67.

 

-Møller, M., & Haustein, S., (2016), “Factors contributing to young moped rider accidents in Denmark”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 87, pp.1-7.

 

-Nadimi, N., Behbahani, H., & Shahbazi, H., (2016), “Calibration and validation of a new time-based surrogate safety measure using fuzzy inference system”. Journal of traffic and transportation engineering (English edition), 3(1), pp.51-58.

 

-Ni, Y., Wang, M., Sun, J., & Li, K., (2016), “Evaluation of pedestrian safety at intersections: A theoretical framework based on pedestrian-vehicle interaction patterns”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 96, pp.118-129.

 

-Olszewski, P., Buttler, I., Czajewski, W., Dąbkowski, P., Kraśkiewicz, C., Szagała, P., & Zielińska, A., (2016), “Pedestrian safety assessment with video analysis”. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, pp.2044-2053.

 

-“One Way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics”://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/one-way-anova-using-spss-statistics.

 

-Qi, Y., & Guoguo, A., (2017), “Pedestrian safety under permissive left-turn signal control”. International journal of transportation science and technology, 6(1), pp.53-62.

-Saulino, G., Persaud, B., & Bassani, M., (2015), “Calibration and application of crash prediction models for safety assessment of roundabouts based on simulated conflicts”. In Proceedings of the 94th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, pp.­11-15.

 

-Shin, D. S., Byun, J. H., & Jeong, B. Y., (2018), “Crashes and traffic signal violations caused by commercial motorcycle couriers”. Safety and Health at Work.

-Small, K. A., Verhoef, E. T., & Lindsey, R., (2007), “The economics of urban transportation. Routledge”.

 

-Stipancic, J., Miranda-Moreno, L., & Saunier, N., (2018), “Vehicle manoeuvers as surrogate safety measures: Extracting data from the gps-enabled smartphones of regular drivers”. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 115, pp.160-169.

 

-Tageldin, A., Zaki, M. H., & Sayed, T., (2017), “Examining pedestrian evasive actions as a potential indicator for traffic conflicts”. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 11(5), pp.282-289.

 

-Ultich Sander, (2017)­, "­Opportunities and limitations for intersection collision intervention- A study of real world left turn across path accidents" Accident Analysis and Prevention, 99, pp.342-355.