Comparison of Car-Following Behavior in Terms of Safety Indicators Between China and Sweden

Abstract

Understanding car-following behaviour in different countries is essential for the design and development of autonomous driving and further development of active safety systems that can function well worldwide, in particular in mixed traffic conditions. However, very few studies exist that compare car-following behaviours in different countries based on real driving data. This paper analyses the similarities and differences of drivers' car-following behaviour, in terms of time gap, gap distance, and time to collision, using both China and Sweden datasets from real road driving studies, in a bid to identify how these indicators affect drivers' speed control in car-following situations. Results indicate that the highest frequency of gap distance is observed in the same value-range in both datasets, while the highest frequency of time gap in the Sweden dataset is found at a lower value-range than the corresponding value-range in the China dataset. For both datasets, time gap is observed to be a more reliable indicator for car-following analysis than gap distance, since it is less sensitive to speed variations. Furthermore, time to collision (TTC) in the low travel speed ranges (v<50 km/h) tends to be steady in comparison with TTC at other speed ranges, so is the time gap in the high speed ranges (v>90 km/h). Therefore, time gap is recommended as the safety indicator for car-following analysis in high speed conditions, while a combination of time gap and TTC is recommended for low speed conditions, especially on urban roads.

Mathematical Definitions of Scene and Scenario for Analysis of Automated Driving Systems in Mixed-Traffic Simulations

“…As previous studies shown, the driver's choices (to let the pedestrians cross the streets, overtake the bicycle, sound the horn, etc.) and the driving style change according to the country [30], [31], the topology of the road [32], [33], the type, the condition as well as the perception of the driver [34], [35]. Through our definitions, the ego-object can be implemented taking into account not only its characteristics (i.e.…”

Learning the Car-following Behavior of Drivers Using Maximum Entropy Deep Inverse Reinforcement Learning

“…e test route consisted of diverse driving scenarios such as urban roads and highways, as shown in Figure 3. e other details of the field tests are described in [39,40].…”

Modeling Drivers’ Strategy When Overtaking Cyclists in the Presence of Oncoming Traffic

“…In this study, we assumed that the limited set of participants who took part in our experiment was representative of the driving population. This may not be the case as driver behavior can greatly vary between different regions and individuals [52], especially when taking exposure to cyclistovertaking maneuvers into account [6]. To better understand how well our model can represent driver behavior close to the boundary of their comfort zone, data from more critical maneuvers are needed.…”