請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71639完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 許添本 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shih-Yuan Chao | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 趙士淵 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T06:05:16Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-02-14 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-02-14 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-01-19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1.Blumenthal, M. (1967). Dimensions of the traffic safety problem (No. 670011). SAE Technical Paper.
2.Little, A. D. (1966). The State of The Art of Traffic Safety-A Critical Review and Analysis of the Technical Information on Factors Affecting Traffic Safety. 3.Saunier, N., & Sayed, T. (2010). Surrogate Safety Analysis. 4.Amundsen, F., & Hyden, C. (1977). The Swedish traffic conflict technique. InProceedings of First Workshop on Traffic Conflicts, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo (pp. 1-5). 5.Perkins, S. R., & Harris, J. I. (1967). Traffic conflict characteristics accident potential at intersections. Research Laboratories, General Motors Corporation. 6.Laureshyn, A., Svensson, Å., & Hydén, C. (2010). Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioural data: Theoretical framework and first implementation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 1637-1646. 7.Minderhoud, M. M., & Bovy, P. H. (2001). Extended time-to-collision measures for road traffic safety assessment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33(1), 89-97. 8.Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences (2010)，Highway Capacity Manual。 9.Takamasa Suetomi, Koji Kido (1997), “Driver Behavior Under a Collision Warning System – A Driving Simulator Study”, SAE 970279, Society of Automotive Engineers. 10.Thomas Dingus, Miao Song, Shane McLaughlin and Zachary Doerzaph. (2016), Connected Motorcycle Crash Warning Interfaces, Final Research Report, Virginia: Connected Vehicle Infrastructure University Transportation Center. 11.Susan Shaheen and Debbie Niemeier. (2001), “Integrating vehicle design and human factors: minimizing elderly driving constraints”, Transportation Research Part C, pp 155-174. 12.Sheldon M. Retchin, Jennifer Cox, Marge y Fox and Linda Irwin. (1988), Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 36, 813-819. 13.H. Ecker, J. Wassermann, R. Ruspekhofer, G. Hauer and M. Winkelbauer. (2001), Brake Reaction Times of Motorcycle Riders, International Motorcycle Safety Conference, March 1- 4, 2001, Orlando Florida, USA. 14.F. Cunto, F. Saccomanno. (2008)Calibration and validation of simulated vehicle safety performance at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40, 1171-1179. 15.Jia Hou, George F. List, and Xiucheng Guo. (2014), New Algorithms for Computing the Time-to-Collision in Freeway Traffic Simulation Models. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2014, 57. 16.Anne T. McCartt, Vernoika I. Shabanova, William A. Leaf. (2003), Driving experience, crashes and traffic citations of teenage beginning drivers, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 311-320. 17.Philip Barber, Nigel Clarke. (1998), Advanced Collision Warning Systems. IEE Colloquium on Industrial Automation and Control: Applications in the Automotive Industry, 1998. 18.D. R. Cox. (1972) Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) Vol. 34, No. 2 (1972), pp. 187-2200 19.David N Lee. (1976) A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information About Time-to-collision. Perception, 1976, volume 5, pages 437-459. 20.Javis Autey, Tarek Sayed, Mohamed H. Zaki. (2012) Safety Evaluation of Right-turn Smart Channels Using Automated Traffic Conflict Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention 45 (2012) 120-13. 21.Jeffery Archer. (2005) Indicators For Traffic Safety Assessment and Prediction and Their Application in Micro-simulation Modelling: A Study of Urban and Suburban Intersections. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden 2005. 22.E. L. Kaplan and Paul Meier. (1978) Nonparametric Estimation From Incomplete Observations. Journal of the American statistical association, 1958. 23.Fred L. Mannering. (1993) Male/Female Driver Characteristics and Accident Risk: Some New Evidence. Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp 77-84, U.S.A. 24.Hayward, J. C. (1972) Near-miss Determination Through Use of A Scale of Danger. Highway Research Record. 25.Van der Horst, A. R. A. (1990) A Time-based Analysis of Road User Behavior in Normal and Critical Encounters. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. 26.Vogel, K. (2002) What Characterizes A “free vehicle” In An Urban Area? Transportation Research Part F5, 15-29. 27.Shbeeb, L..(2000) Development Of Traffic Conflicts Technique For Different Enviromments: A Comparative Study of Pedestrian Conflicts in Sewden and Jordan, Doctoral dissertation, Lund University. 28.Hansson, A. (1975) Studies in Driver Behaviour, With Applications in Traffic Design and Planning: Two Examples. 29.Brian L. Allen, B. Tom Shin, Peter J. Cooper (1978) Analysis of Traffic Conflicts and Collisions. Transportation Research Board, No. HS-025 846. 30.張新立、葉祖宏 (2005)，存活分析法應用於機車持有年限之研究，運輸計劃季刊，第34卷第3期，頁443-468。 31.鍾易詩、邱裕鈞、謝志偉、張開國、葉祖宏、田養民、陳凱斌 (2014)，國道高速公路交通事故持續時間分析與推估：脆弱性存活模型之應用，運輸學刊，第26卷第4期，頁555-578。 32.黃家耀、李子璋、陳彥佑、劉品均、羅湘盈、廖家慧、羅聖學、曾家瑜、黃維皓 (2015)，混合車流模擬技術研發─機車行為研究，交通部。 33.孟祥海、徐漢清、王浩、ㄠ暉 (2012) 基於TTC及DRAC的高速公路施工區追尾衝突研究。交通信息與安全，第30卷第6期，總173期。 34.張盈盈、劉帥、邱志軍、姚丹亞、彭黎輝 (2012)，行人車輛衝突參數分析與安全評價，哈爾濱大學工業報，第44卷第12期。 35.吳彪、宋成舉、戴同焱、白朮 (2014) 高速公路施工區合流衝突風險閾值界定及交通衝突量預測。北京工業大學學報，第40卷第4期。 36.蕭唯倫 (2015)，應用資料探勘技術針對肇事碰撞型態建立路口分支風險和肇事因子模型，國立臺灣大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。 37.交通部，道路交通事故處理規範。 38.施智中 (2008)，應用時間相依共變數Cox模型預測公司破產事件研究，國立台北大學統計學系碩士班碩士論文。 39.丁崇德、陳怡君 (2008)，應用存活分析法探討國內航線之營運，商管科技季刊，第九卷第三期。 40.蔡永祥 (2008)，以數位式行車紀錄辨析高肇事大客車駕駛族群，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系碩士論文。 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71639 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究以存活分析觀察駕駛行為在防撞警示系統運作下的變化，作為評估防撞警示系統績效的依據。存活分析為以時間資料為重要變數的分析方式，根據衝突樣本時間變數及其設限狀態建立生命表，繪製Kaplan-Meier存活曲線觀察其存活率變化，再以Cox等比例風險模式分析影響時間變數的相關變數。防撞警示系統係根據本向來車車速快慢決定鄰向路口是否給予閃燈警示，設置於花蓮東華大學校內涵星莊外環道T字路口及理工二館外環道T字路口。涵星莊外環道T字路口常見之衝突型態為左轉穿越型衝突及右轉匯入型衝突，理工二館外環道T字路口常見之衝突型態為交叉型衝突及左轉匯入型衝突。透過現地交通調查，無人機空拍錄影取得車流影像資料，於軌跡處理軟體上將軌跡轉換為位置及速率之時空資料。以「後侵占時間PET」作為左轉穿越型衝突及交叉型衝突之指標，「碰撞時間TTC」作為匯入型衝突之指標，將車流軌跡時空資料量化為衝突樣本。衝突樣本根據嚴重度等級訂定設限程度，左轉穿越型衝突無門檻值全為完整資料，交叉型衝突超過3秒為右設限資料，匯入型衝突2秒以上為右設限資料。
結果指出，左轉穿越型衝突之存活曲線無異，交叉型衝突、匯入型衝突皆顯示為兩條相異曲線，且根據存活時間增加，判定有警示為防撞警示系統有效。進一步建立Cox等比例風險模式分析與衝突相關之變數，左轉穿越衝突相關變數為後車速率，交叉型衝突相關變數為警示及後車是否轉向，右轉匯入型衝突相關變數為警示、車頭角度差、直行車先到、行人干擾，左轉匯入型衝突相關變數為警示、車頭角度差。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The Thesis focus on using survival analysis to the performance evaluation of the collision warning system. Survival analysis is a method analyzing the time as a dependent variable. The collision warning is to warn that the adjacent lane is coming a vehicle. The systems are set on the T-junction near Dormitory III and the T-junction near Science and Engineering Building II, which the common conflict types of former junction are left-turned crossing conflict and right-turned merging conflict and of latter junction are right angle conflict and left-turned merging conflict. Fly a drone to collect the trajectories of the vehicles intersect in an intersection, and manipulate the softwore “Tracker” to transform them into time-space data. The thesis uses Post Encroachment Time (PET) for left-turned crossing conflict and right angle conflict and uses Time to Collision (TTC) for merging conflict.
Based on the result of Kaplan-Meier curve, the 'Warning' curve is different from 'No Warning' curve for right angle conflict and merging conflict. Then it uses Cox proportion hazard function for further discussion of the relating factors of the conflicts. The significant variables of left-turned crossing conflict are rear vehicle speed. Of right angle conflict are warning and if rear vehicle turns. The common significant variables of merging conflict are warning and the angle difference of two vehicles. In addition, other significant variables of right-turned merging conflict are if the straight car first arrived the intersection and the pedestrian interference. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T06:05:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R05521503-1.pdf: 2977000 bytes, checksum: c8c48ff19731bd07b4458a007ed08798 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 I
摘要 III Abstract IV 目錄 V 圖目錄 VIII 表目錄 X 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 研究問題 2 1.3 研究目的 3 1.4 研究流程 4 第二章 文獻回顧 5 2.1 交通安全分析概要 5 2.2 交通衝突法 7 2.2.1 交通衝突指標 11 2.2.2 交通衝突指標小結 19 2.2.3 碰撞時間嚴重度分級 21 2.3 存活分析 25 2.3.1 存活資料及模式選擇 25 2.3.2 各模式檢定方式 28 2.4 駕駛行為共生變數分類 29 第三章 研究方法 32 3.1 存活分析(Survival Analysis) 32 3.2 資料設限型式 33 3.3 Kaplan-Meier存活曲線 34 3.4 Cox等比例風險模式 38 第四章 資料蒐集與處理 40 4.1 車流影像處理 40 4.2 防撞警示系統 42 4.3 衝突型態定義 43 4.3.1 左轉穿越型衝突 44 4.3.2 交叉型衝突 46 4.3.3 匯入型衝突 48 4.4交叉口交通特性 50 4.4.1理工二館外環道T字路口 50 4.4.2 涵星莊外環道T字路口 52 4.5 交通衝突指標 53 4.5.1 後侵占時間(PET) 54 4.5.2 碰撞時間(TTC) 55 第五章 分析結果 57 5.1 模式求解工具 57 5.2 資料統計 57 5.3 Kaplan-Meier存活曲線 62 5.4 參數校估結果 67 5.4.1 左轉穿越型衝突 67 5.4.2 交叉型衝突 72 5.4.3 匯入型衝突 79 第六章 結論與建議 89 6.1 結論 89 6.2 後續建議 91 參考文獻 94 附表 99 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 以存活分析評估防撞警示系統績效 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Survival Analysis to Collision Warning System Performance Evaluation | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳健生,郭佩棻 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 防撞警示,後侵占時間,碰撞時間,存活分析,Cox等比例風險模式, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Collision Warning System,PET,TTC,Survival Analysis,Cox Proportion Hazard Function, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 102 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201803134 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-01-21 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 土木工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 土木工程學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.91 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。