AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (4.9 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Open Access

Dangerous Driving Behavior Recognition and Prevention Using an Autoregressive Time-Series Model

Department of Automation, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
Show Author Information

Abstract

Time headway is an important index used in characterizing dangerous driving behaviors. This research focuses on the decreasing tendency of time headway and investigates its association with crash occurrence. An autoregressive (AR) time-series model is improved and adopted to describe the dynamic variations of average daily time headway. Based on the model, a simple approach for dangerous driving behavior recognition is proposed with the aim of significantly decreasing headway. The effectivity of the proposed approach is validated by means of empirical data collected from a medium-sized city in northern China. Finally, a practical early-warning strategy focused on both the remaining life and low headway is proposed to remind drivers to pay attention to their driving behaviors and the possible occurrence of crash-related risks.

References

[1]
Sabey B. E. and Taylor H., The known risks we run: The highway, in Societal Risk Assessment, Schwing R. C. and Albers W. A. Jr., eds. Boston, MA, USA: Springer, 1980, pp. 43-70.
[2]
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway safety manual, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[3]
Lewin I., Driver training: A perceptual-motor skill approach, Ergonomics, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 917-924, 1982.
[4]
Taylor M. C., Lynam D. C., and Baruya A., The effects of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents, TRL report 421, Transport Research Laboratory, UK, 2000.
[5]
Elvik R., Christensen P., and Amundsen A. H., Speed and road accidents: An evaluation of the power model, Nordic road and transport research, Oslo: Institute of Transport Economics, 2004.
[6]
Vogel K., A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators, Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 427-433, 2003.
[7]
Paefgen J., Staake T., and Fleisch E., Multivariate exposure modeling of accident risk: Insights from pay-as-you-drive insurance data, Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract., vol. 61, pp. 27-40, 2014.
[8]
Husnjak S., Perakovi D., Forenbacher I., and Mumdziev M., Telematics system in usage based motor insurance, Procedia Eng., vol. 100, pp. 816-825, 2015.
[9]
Heino A., van der Molen H. H., and Wilde G. J. S., Differences in risk experience between sensation avoiders and sensation seekers, Personal. Individ. Differ., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 71-79, 1996.
[10]
Heino A., van der Molen H. H., and Wilde G. J. S., Risk perception, risk taking, accident involvement and the need for stimulation, Saf. Sci., vol. 22, nos. 1–3, pp. 35-48, 1996.
[11]
van Winsum W. and Heino A., Choice of time-headway in car-following and the role of time-to-collision information in braking, Ergonomics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 579-592, 1996.
[12]
Evans L. and Wasielewski P., Do accident-involved drivers exhibit riskier everyday driving behavior? Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 57-64, 1982.
[13]
Chen H. X., Pei X., Zhang Z., Yao D. Y., Feng Q. J., and Wang Z. Z., Driving behavior differences between crash-involved and crash-not-involved drivers using urban traffic surveillance data, presented at the IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, Beijing, China, 2016.
[14]
Händel P., Ohlsson J., Ohlsson M., Skog I., and Nygren E., Smartphone-based measurement systems for road vehicle traffic monitoring and usage-based insurance, IEEE Syst. J., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1238-1248, 2014.
[15]
Guo W., Zhang Y., and Li L., The integration of CPS, CPSS, and ITS: A focus on data, Tsinghua Sci. Technol., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 327-335, 2015.
[16]
Shang C., Yang F., Gao X. Q., Huang X, L., Suykens J. A. K., and Huang D. X., Concurrent monitoring of operating condition deviations and process dynamics anomalies with slow feature analysis, AIChE J., vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 3666-3682, 2015.
[17]
Shang C., Huang B., Yang F., and Huang D. X., Probabilistic slow feature analysis based-representation learning from massive process data for soft sensor modeling, AIChE J., vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4126-4139, 2015.
[18]
Liao H. T., Zhao W. B., and Guo H. R., Predicting remaining useful life of an individual unit using proportional hazards model and logistic regression model, presented at RAMS ’06 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Newport Beach, CA, USA, 2006.
[19]
Si X. S., Wang W. B., Hu C. H., and Zhou D. H., Remaining useful life estimation-a review on the statistical data driven approaches, Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 213, no. 1, pp. 1-14, 2011.
[20]
Li G., Qin J., Ji Y. D., and Zhou D. H., Reconstruction based fault prognosis for continuous processes, Control Eng. Pract., vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1211-1219, 2010.
[21]
Deng Z. L., Self-Tuning Filtering Theory with Applications: Modern Time Series Analysis Method, (in Chinese). Harbin, China: Press of Harbin Institute of Technology, 2003.
Tsinghua Science and Technology
Pages 682-690
Cite this article:
Chen H, Feng S, Pei X, et al. Dangerous Driving Behavior Recognition and Prevention Using an Autoregressive Time-Series Model. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 2017, 22(6): 682-690. https://doi.org/10.23919/TST.2017.8195350

680

Views

27

Downloads

18

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

23

Scopus

3

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 21 July 2016
Revised: 28 September 2016
Accepted: 03 October 2016
Published: 14 December 2017
© The author(s) 2017
Return