| Literature DB >> 35327878 |
Sarbast Moslem1, Danish Farooq2, Arshad Jamal3, Yahya Almarhabi4,5, Meshal Almoshaogeh6, Farhan Muhammad Butt7, Rana Faisal Tufail2.
Abstract
Frequent lane changes cause serious traffic safety concerns, which involve fatalities and serious injuries. This phenomenon is affected by several significant factors related to road safety. The detection and classification of significant factors affecting lane changing could help reduce frequent lane changing risk. The principal objective of this research is to estimate and prioritize the nominated crucial criteria and sub-criteria based on participants' answers on a designated questionnaire survey. In doing so, this paper constructs a hierarchical lane-change model based on the concept of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with two levels of the most concerning attributes. Accordingly, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) procedure was applied utilizing fuzzy scale to evaluate precisely the most influential factors affecting lane changing, which will decrease uncertainty in the evaluation process. Based on the final measured weights for level 1, FAHP model estimation results revealed that the most influential variable affecting lane-changing is 'traffic characteristics'. In contrast, compared to other specified factors, 'light conditions' was found to be the least critical factor related to driver lane-change maneuvers. For level 2, the FAHP model results showed 'traffic volume' as the most critical factor influencing the lane changes operations, followed by 'speed'. The objectivity of the model was supported by sensitivity analyses that examined a range for weights' values and those corresponding to alternative values. Based on the evaluated results, stakeholders can determine strategic policy by considering and placing more emphasis on the highlighted risk factors associated with lane changing to improve road safety. In conclusion, the finding provides the usefulness of the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to review lane-changing risks for road safety.Entities:
Keywords: frequent lane changing; fuzzy analytic hierarchy process; highway safety; lane change factorial model; multicriteria decision making
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327878 PMCID: PMC8947706 DOI: 10.3390/e24030367
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Summary of Fuzzy AHP applications in road transport-related studies.
| Authors (Year of Publication) | Applications |
|---|---|
| Srisawat et al., 2017 [ | Estimate the quality of transport logistics on a regional scale |
| Nanda and Singh, 2018 [ | Evaluate the factors of road incidents |
| Danish Farooq and Sarbast Moslem, 2019 [ | Estimated the significant driver behavior factors affecting the highway safety in the context of the city of Budapest, Hungary |
| M. Gul et al., 2018 [ | The authors presented a risk assessment model based on FAHP for means in hazardous substance transportation |
| Shalini Kanuganti et al., 2016 [ | Investigate the ranking of safety essentials of a particular group of rural roads |
| Pandian et al., 2016 [ | Presented a model to optimize/minimize blind areas/spots for heavy transport vehicles |
| Yaqin He and Shengpin Du, 2016 [ | A quantitative model of emergency categorization offered by focusing traffic guarantee power during the collision |
Descriptive statistics of study participants.
| Variable Description | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Number (N) | 70 | 100 |
|
| ||
| 18–30 | 14 | 20 |
| 31–50 | 34 | 48.5 |
| 51 above | 22 | 31.5 |
|
| ||
| male | 63 | 90 |
| female | 07 | 10 |
| 1–5 | 11 | 15.71 |
| 6–15 | 37 | 52.85 |
| 16–25 | 22 | 31.42 |
|
| ||
| Bachelor’s degree | 33 | 47.14 |
| MSC/PhD | 37 | 52.86 |
An Example of Questionnaire survey for level 1.
| Comparing the Selected Factors Importance in Response to Rrequent Lane-Changing | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic Characteristics | Human Attributes | Road Characteristics | Light Conditions | |
| Traffic characteristics | (1, 1, 1) | (2, 3, 4) | (4, 5, 6) | (6, 7, 8) |
| Human | (1/2, 1/3, 1/4) | (1, 1, 1) | (6, 7, 8) | (4, 5, 6) |
| Road characteristics | (1/4, 1/5, 1/6) | (1/6, 1/7, 1/8) | (1, 1, 1) | (6, 7, 8) |
| Light conditions | (1/6, 1/7, 1/8) | (1/4, 1/5, 1/6) | (1/6, 1/7, 1/8) | (1, 1, 1) |
Figure 1Lane change factorial model [34].
Importance of specified factors in related traffic safety studies.
| Main Factor | Sub-Factor | Explanation and Related Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Traffic Characteristics | Traffic Volume (F1.1) | Traffic volumes were identified as the highly significant factors for modeling the driving behavior [ |
| Traffic Composition (F1.2) | Traffic composition has statistically | |
| Following Distance (F1.3) | To ensure the safety distance for lane changing, a safe car-following | |
| Speed (F1.4) | High-speeds variations within the same lane | |
| Vehicle Type (F1.5) | Vehicle type has been utilized in numerous traffic crash studies [ | |
| Human | Carelessness (F2.1) | Previous studies confirmed that drivers with careless driver behavior might considerably raise the risk of traffic collisions [ |
| Illiteracy (F2.2) | The study results revealed that most casualties in traffic collisions were illiterates for different age groups [ | |
| Violation of Traffic Rules (F2.3) | Traffic violations were noted to be the leading risks threatening road safety [ | |
| Training (F2.4) | Driving behavior is affected by training, experience, and personal characteristics [ | |
| Road Characteristics | Road Type (F3.1) | A previous study analyzed the relationship between type of road infrastructure and crash involvement [ |
| Road Surface (F3.2) | Previous study analysis indicated that deformations on pavement surface have a positive impact on lane-changing [ | |
| Grade (F3.3) | Road safety problems may appear due to upgrade or downgrade sections [ | |
| Light conditions | Daytime light (F4.1) | Dark lighting conditions are more likely to lead to fatal or severe injury crashes compared with daylight [ |
Random Index values based on matrix size.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 |
| 3 | 0.58 |
| 4 | 0.9 |
| 5 | 1.12 |
| 6 | 1.24 |
| 7 | 1.32 |
| 8 | 1.41 |
Figure 2The membership functions of triangular fuzzy numbers. Reprinted with permission from Ref. [64]. Copyright (2021), Elsevier Ltd.
Membership function of linguistic scale [65].
| Linguistic | Scale of Fuzzy Number |
|---|---|
| Extremely important | (8, 9, 10) |
| Very strong important | (6, 7, 8) |
| Important | (4, 5, 6) |
| Moderately important | (2, 3, 4) |
| Equally important | (1, 1, 1) |
| Intermediate values | (7, 8, 9), (5, 6, 7), (3, 4, 5), (1, 2, 3) |
Figure 3The main step of conducting AHP in Fuzzy light conditions.
Factor weight scores affecting frequent lane changing based on expert drivers’ responses based on the Fuzzy AHP model.
| Level 1 | Level 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Main Factor | Weight | Sub-Factor | Weight |
| Traffic Characteristics | 0.5404 | Traffic Volume | 0.4071 |
| Traffic Composition | 0.1285 | ||
| Following Distance | 0.1565 | ||
| Speed | 0.3209 | ||
| Vehicle Type | 0.1150 | ||
| Human | 0.2232 | Carelessness | 0.2585 |
| Illiteracy | 0.1084 | ||
| Violation of Rules | 0.3989 | ||
| Training | 0.2748 | ||
| Road Characteristics | 0.1847 | Road Type | 0.6215 |
| Road Surface | 0.2280 | ||
| Grade | 0.1904 | ||
| Light conditions | 0.0882 | Daytime light | 0.8193 |
| Night Light | 0.1807 | ||
The final weight scores for the main factors in the first level.
| Factor | Weight | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Traffic Characteristics | 0.5404 | 1 |
| Human | 0.2232 | 2 |
| Road Characteristics | 0.1847 | 3 |
| Light conditions | 0.0882 | 4 |
The final weight scores for subfactors in the second level.
| Factor | Local Weight | Final Weight | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic Volume | 0.4071 | 0.2200 | 1 |
| Traffic Composition | 0.1285 | 0.0694 | 8 |
| Following Distance | 0.1565 | 0.0846 | 5 |
| Speed | 0.3209 | 0.1734 | 2 |
| Vehicle Type | 0.1408 | 0.0761 | 6 |
| Carelessness | 0.2585 | 0.0577 | 10 |
| Illiteracy | 0.1084 | 0.0242 | 13 |
| Violation of Rules | 0.3989 | 0.0890 | 4 |
| Training | 0.2748 | 0.0614 | 9 |
| Road Type | 0.6215 | 0.1148 | 3 |
| Road Surface | 0.2280 | 0.0421 | 11 |
| Grade | 0.1904 | 0.0352 | 12 |
| Daytime light | 0.8193 | 0.0723 | 7 |
| Night Light | 0.1807 | 0.0159 | 14 |
The final weight scores for main factors in the first level after sensitivity analysis.
| Factor | Weight | Weight after the Sensitivity Analysis | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic Characteristics | 0.5404 | 0.5500 | 1 |
| Human | 0.2232 | 0.2100 | 2 |
| Road Characteristics | 0.1847 | 0.1700 | 3 |
| Light conditions | 0.0882 | 0.0700 | 4 |
The final weight scores for main factors in the second level after sensitivity analysis.
| Factor | Local Weight | Final Weight | New Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic Volume | 0.4071 | 0.223905 | 1 |
| Traffic Composition | 0.1285 | 0.070675 | 7 |
| Following Distance | 0.1565 | 0.086075 | 4 |
| Speed | 0.3209 | 0.176495 | 2 |
| Vehicle Type | 0.1408 | 0.07744 | 6 |
| Carelessness | 0.2585 | 0.054285 | 10 |
| Illiteracy | 0.1084 | 0.022764 | 13 |
| Violation of Rules | 0.3989 | 0.083769 | 5 |
| Training | 0.2748 | 0.057708 | 8 |
| Road Type | 0.6215 | 0.105655 | 3 |
| Road Surface | 0.2280 | 0.03876 | 11 |
| Grade | 0.1904 | 0.032368 | 12 |
| Daytime light | 0.8193 | 0.057351 | 9 |
| Night Light | 0.1807 | 0.012649 | 14 |