Feasibility of Using In-Vehicle Video Data to Explore How to Modify Driver Behavior That Causes Nonrecurring Congestion (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C - Project 7 and Project 8 Event Data Dictionary
Appendix C - Project 7 and Project 8 Event Data Dictionary
Pages 94-122
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 94... ...
Baseline epochs are described using many of the same variables and data elements used to describe and classify crashes, near crashes, and incidents. Examples of such variables include ambient weather, roadway type, and driver behaviors.
|
From page 95... ...
A normal maneuver for the subject vehicle is defined as a control input that falls within the 99% confidence limit for control inputs for the initial study data sample. Examples of potential crash-relevant conflicts include hard braking by a driver because of a specific crash threat or proximity to other vehicles.
|
From page 96... ...
• 02 = LOS B: Flow with some restrictions. (In the range of stable traffic flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable.
|
From page 97... ...
Operations at this level are usually unstable because small increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.) • 06 = LOS F: Forced traffic flow condition with low speeds and traffic volumes that are below capacity; queues form in particular locations.
|
From page 98... ...
GES, LTCCS 28 45 Incident types Two recent VTTI studies 29 46 Critical precrash event LTCCS 30 47 Critical reason for the critical event LTCCS 31 48a Attempted avoidance maneuver GES, LTCCS 32 49 Driver vision obscured by GES 34 Not coded Average PERCLOS value (1, 3, 5 minutes) VTTI and other fatigue research 35–37 Observer rating of drowsiness (1 minute)
|
From page 99... ...
Diagrams of these scenarios are provided in Table C.3.Critical Precrash Event for Vehicle 1 (C-N-I) • 00 = Not applicable (baseline epoch)
|
From page 100... ...
100Table C.2. Description of Accident Types (1)
|
From page 101... ...
Driver approaches stopped or slowing traffic too quickly and has to brake hard or suddenly to avoid hitting the lead vehicle. Driver backs the vehicle while on a roadway in order to maneuver around an obstacle ahead on the roadway.
|
From page 102... ...
Incident Type Description Illustration 11 12 Drivers entering or exiting a roadway, using a shared weaving section, conflict. Driver is approaching oncoming traffic (e.g., through an intersection)
|
From page 103... ...
and blocks traffic in the opposite direction. Driver enters an adjacent lane without allowing adequate space between the driver's vehicle and the vehicle ahead or behind it.
|
From page 104... ...
The lead vehicle must wait for the merged vehicle to pass before it is safe to enter the main highway. Driver merges into traffic without a sufficient gap to either the front or the back of one or more vehicles.
|
From page 105... ...
Incident Type Description Illustration Driver fails to respond to a red traffic signal, conflicting with a vehicle proceeding through the intersection legally. Driver turns onto a roadway without adequate clearance from through traffic.
|
From page 106... ...
Traffic in the adjacent lane may be moving in the same or opposite direction.
|
From page 107... ...
• 29 = Unknown travel direction. Other Motor Vehicle (V2)
|
From page 108... ...
DV1 Critical Reason for the Critical Event (C-N-I) • 000a = Not applicable (baseline epoch)
|
From page 109... ...
(Excessive risky driving behaviors performed without intent to harm others, such as weaving through traffic, maneuvering without signaling, running red lights, frequent lane changing, and tailgating.) • 138 = Other decision error.
|
From page 110... ...
Comment: LTCCS Variable 7 and GES V27, corrective action attempted. Released gas pedal elements added because this evasive maneuver by subject drivers is sometimes observed.
|
From page 111... ...
; duration lasts much longer; does not have any apparent impact on vehicle control.) • 100 = Extremely drowsy.
|
From page 112... ...
• 01 = Apparent excessive speed for conditions or location (regardless of speed limit; does not include tailgating unless above speed limit)
|
From page 113... ...
The coding of functional countermeasures is based on both algorithmic determination from previous coded variables and analyst judgment. In many cases, particular accident type, critical reason, or other causationrelated codes algorithmically determine applicable functional countermeasures.
|
From page 114... ...
Improve vehicle control/stability on curves Improve vehicle control/stability on slippery road surfaces Improve vehicle control/stability during braking Improve vehicle control/stability during evasive steering Increase driver attention to forward visual scene (e.g., eyes on road) Increase/improve driver use of mirrors or provide better information from mirrors (or from other indirect visibility systems)
|
From page 115... ...
in lane ahead traveling in same direction Increase driver recognition/appreciation of specific highway crash threats: moving/decelerating vehicle(s) in lane ahead traveling in same direction Increase driver recognition/appreciation of specific highway crash threats: vehicle in left adjacent lane on highway Increase driver recognition/appreciation of specific highway crash threats: vehicle in right adjacent lane on highway Increase driver recognition/appreciation of specific highway crash threats: vehicle in left adjacent lane during merging maneuver Increase driver recognition/appreciation of specific highway crash threats: vehicle in right adjacent lane during merging maneuver Increase driver recognition of crossing or oncoming traffic at intersections Improve driver gap judgment relating to crossing or oncoming traffic at intersections CR = 120 Or Driver behavior = 1, 43 CR = 120 and Profile = 2b or Driver B = 1, 43 and Profile = 2b CR = 120 and Alignment = 2a, 2b Or Driver B = 1, 43 and Alignment = 2a, 2b CR = 120 and Profile = 2b or Driver B = 1, 43 and Profile = 2b Prevented speed greater than 70 mph; analyst judgment Evidence: CR = 120; Driver A/F/B = 1 AT = 11, 20 And CR = 107–119 AT = 24, 28 And CR = 107–119 AT = 47 And CR = 107–119 AT = 46 And CR = 107–114 AT = 47, 78 And PEM = 16 And CR = 107–119 AT = 46, 76 And PEM = 16 And CR = 107–119 AT = 76, 78, 80, 82–91 And CR = 107–119 AT = 76, 78, 80, 82–91 And CR = 122 Includes all road configurations and thus is inclusive of 14–16 but does not include all speeds above speed limit; must be significant factor.
|
From page 116... ...
controls (includes both intentional and unintentional intersection control violations) Increase forward headway during vehicle following Improve driver night vision in forward field Provide warning to prevent rear encroachment or tailgating by other vehicle (i.e., this vehicle is lead vehicle, other vehicle is following)
|
From page 117... ...
• 17 = Successful avoidance maneuver to a previous critical event. • 98 = Other.
|
From page 118... ...
encroaching into lane • 60 = From adjacent lane (same direction) , toward or over left lane line.
|
From page 119... ...
• 119 = Apparent recognition error. Driver-Related Factor: Decision Errors • 120 = Too fast for conditions (e.g., for safe vehicle control or to be able to respond to unexpected actions of other road users)
|
From page 120... ...
Comment: LTCCS Variable 7 and GES V27, corrective action attempted. The released gas pedal elements available for DV1 are not available for DV2, because they would not be observable from outside the vehicle.
|
From page 121... ...
The coding of functional countermeasures is based on both algorithmic determination from previous coded variables and analyst judgment. In many cases, particular accident type, critical reason, or other causation-related codes algorithmically
|
From page 122... ...
The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: A Descriptive Analysis of Light Vehicle-Heavy Vehicle Interactions from Light Vehicle Driver's Perspective. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, Va., 2004.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.