A lane-changing (LC) maneuver may cause the follower in the target lane (new follower) to decelerate and give up space, potentially affecting crash risk and traffic flow efficiency. In congested flow, a more aggressive LC maneuver occurs where the lane changer is partially next to the new follower and creates negative gaps, namely negative gap forced LC (NGFLC). Although NGFLC forms the foundation of sideswipe crashes, little has been done to address its impacts and the contributing factors. To tackle this issue, a total of 15,810 LC trajectory samples are extracted from three drone videos at different locations. These samples are categorized into NGFLC and normal LC groups for comparative analysis. Five commonly used conflict indicators are extended into two-dimensional to evaluate the crash risk of LC maneuver. The change of time gaps during LC maneuver are examined to quantify the impact of LC on traffic flow efficiency. We find that NGFLCs significantly increase crash risk, reflected by the number of hazardous LC events and potential crash areas compared to normal LC. Additionally, results reveal that both the lane changer and the new follower tend to maintain a larger time gap after NGFLCs. Factors including time headway, relative speed, and historical gaps in the target lane significantly affect NGFLC incidence. Once the movement of the leader in the original lane is taken into account, the prediction accuracy improves from 81% to 91%. The transferability tests indicate that the findings about the negative impact of NGFLC and the accuracy of its prediction model are consistent across different locations. These findings hold implications for driving assistance systems to better predict and mitigate NGFLCs.

With the increased deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in mixed traffic flow, ensuring safe and efficient interactions between AVs and human road users is important. In urban environments, intersections have various conflicts that can greatly affect driving safety and traffic efficiency. This study uses road test data to examine the possible safety and efficiency impacts of intersection conflict resolution involving AVs. The contribution comprises two main aspects. Firstly. we prepare and open a high-quality lateral conflict resolution dataset derived from the Argoverse-2 data, specifically targeting urban intersections. A rigorous data processing pipeline is applied to extract pertinent scenarios, rectify anomalies, enhance data quality, and annotate conflict regimes. This effort yields 5000+ AV-involved and 16000 AV-free cases, covering rich conflict regimes and balanced traffic states. Secondly, we employ surrogate safety measures to assess the safety impact of AVs on human-driven vehicles (HVs) and pedestrians. In addition, a novel concept of Minimum Recurrent Clearance Time (MRCT) is proposed to quantify the traffic efficiency impacts of AVs during conflict resolution. The results show that, for AV–HV and HV–HV conflict resolution processes, the differences in selected safety and efficiency measures for human drivers are statistically insignificant. In contrast, pedestrians demonstrate diverse behaviour adjustments. Some pedestrians behave more conservatively when interacting with AVs than with HVs. Notably, the efficiency of AV-involved conflict resolution is significantly lower than in AV-free instances due to the conservative driving style of AVs. This efficiency gap is particularly large when AVs pass through the conflict point after human drivers in unprotected left turns. These observations offer a perspective on how AVs potentially affect the safety and efficiency of mixed traffic. The processed dataset is openly available via https://github.com/RomainLITUD/conflict_resolution_dataset.

Safety is the cornerstone of L2+ autonomous driving and one of the fundamental tasks is forward collision warning that detects potential rear-end collisions. Potential collisions are also known as conflicts, which have long been indicated using Time-to-Collision with a critical threshold to distinguish safe and unsafe situations. Such indication, however, focuses on a single scenario and cannot cope with dynamic traffic environments. For example, TTC-based crash warning frequently misses potential collisions in congested traffic, and issues false alarms during lane-changing or parking. Aiming to minimise missed and false alarms in conflict detection, this study proposes a more reliable approach based on vehicle spacing patterns. To test this approach, we use both synthetic and real-world conflict data. Our experiments show that the proposed approach outperforms single-threshold TTC unless conflicts happened in the exact way that TTC is defined, which is rarely true. When conflicts are heterogeneous and when the information of conflict situation is incompletely known, as is the case with real-world conflicts, our approach can achieve less missed and false detection. This study offers a new perspective for conflict detection, and also a general framework allowing for further elaboration to minimise missed and false alarms. Less missed alarms will contribute to fewer accidents, meanwhile, fewer false alarms will promote people's trust in collision avoidance systems. We thus expect this study to contribute to safer and more trustworthy autonomous driving.

Integrating Automated Vehicles (AVs) into existing traffic systems holds the promise of enhanced road safety, reduced congestion, and more sustainable travel. Effective integration of AVs requires understanding the interactions between AVs and Human-driving Vehicles (HVs), especially during the transition period in which AVs and HVs coexist in a mixed traffic environment. Numerous recent empirical studies find reduced headways of human drivers following an AV compared to following an HV, and attribute this reduction to behavioural changes of drivers when they follow AVs. However, more factors may be at play due to the inherent inconsistencies between the comparison conditions of HV-following-AV and HV-following-HV. This study scrutinises three alternative explanations for the observed reduction in headways: (1) systematic differences in car-following states during data collection, (2) systematic differences in driving variability between leading AVs and HVs, and (3) systematic differences in driving characteristics of leading AVs versus HVs. We use a large-scale dataset extracted from Lyft AV motion data and examine each of these explanations through data stratification and simulation. Our results show that all three mechanisms contribute to the observed reduction in headways of human drivers following AVs. In addition, our findings highlight the importance of driving homogeneity and stability in achieving reliably shorter headways. Thereby, this study offers a more comprehensive understanding on the difference between HV–AV and HV–HV interactions in mixed traffic, and is expected to promote more effective integration of AVs into human traffic.

This study presents a new method to infer the average two-dimensional (2D) spacing between interacting vehicles in urban traffic from trajectory data. In this context, 2D spacing reflects the amount of road space consumed by pairs of interacting vehicles, and is related to 2D density at the macroscopic level. Due to complex interaction and conflicts in urban traffic, the inherent assumptions in traditional traffic flow models, such as unidirectional flow and homogeneity, are often violated. Such violation challenges direct measurement of urban vehicle spacing. The proposed method addresses this challenge by focusing on the relative movement between interacting vehicles and aggregating the accumulated presence of vehicles in similar scenarios. We apply the method to a large-scale urban trajectory dataset called pNEUMA, and validate the consistency of the method through bootstrapping. By applying the method we obtain a new empirical relation between the average 2D spacing and the relative speeds between interacting vehicles. There are similarities between this empirical relation with the classical Fundamental Diagram of traffic flow in terms of shape and interpretation, and so we term it the “interaction Fundamental Diagram” (iFD). However, there are also key differences. The iFD does not represent steady-state (homogeneous and stationary) longitudinal behaviour; it describes the average amount of road space needed for vehicle interactions at different relative speeds. We believe these iFD relations contribute to understanding vehicle interaction in urban traffic, and can offer new insights for designing safer and more efficient urban intersections.