1932

Abstract

The naturalistic driving study (NDS) is an innovative research method characterized by the continuous recording of driving information using advanced instrumentation under real-world driving conditions. NDSs provide opportunities to assess driving risks that are difficult to evaluate using traditional crash database or experimental methods. NDS findings have profound impacts on driving safety research, safety countermeasures development, and public policy. NDSs also come with attendant challenges to statistical analysis, however, due to the sheer volume of data collected, complex structure, and high cost associated with information extraction. This article reviews statistical and analytical methods for working with NDS data. Topics include the characteristics of NDSs; NDS data components; and epidemiological approaches for video-based risk modeling, including case-cohort and case-crossover study designs, logistic models, Poisson models, and recurrent event models. The article also discusses several key issues related to NDS analysis, such as crash surrogates and alternative reference exposure levels.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-105153
2019-03-07
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/statistics/6/1/annurev-statistics-030718-105153.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-105153&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. AASHTO (Am. Assoc. State Highw. Transp. Off.) 2010. Highway Safety Manual Washington, DC: AASHTO
  2. Andersen PK, Gill RD 1982. Cox's regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann. Stat. 10:1100–20
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Antin JF, Guo F, Fang YJ, Dingus TA, Hankey JM, Perez MA 2017a. The influence of functional health on seniors' driving risk. J. Transp. Health 6:237–44
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Antin JF, Guo F, Fang YJ, Dingus TA, Perez MA, Hankey JM 2017b. A validation of the low mileage bias using naturalistic driving study data. J. Safety Res. 63:115–20
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Behbahani 2015. New time-based surrogate safety measure to assess crash risk in car-following scenarios. Transp. Lett. 7:229–38
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brookmeyer R, Liang K, Linet M 1986. Matched case-control designs and overmatched analyses. Am. J. Epidemiol. 124:693–701
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen C, Guo F 2016. Evaluating the influence of crashes on driving risk using recurrent event models and Naturalistic Driving Study data. J. Appl. Stat. 43:2225–38
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen GX, Fang YJ, Guo F, Hanowski RJ 2016. The influence of daily sleep patterns of commercial truck drivers on driving performance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 91:55–63
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cook JK, Antin JF, Atkins WM, Hankey JM 2015. Naturalistic Driving Study: collecting data on cell phone use Rep. S2-S06-RW-2 Transp. Res. Board Washington, DC:
  10. Cooper PJ. 1984. Experience with traffic conflicts in Canada with emphasis on “post encroachment time” techniques. International Calibration Study of Traffic Conflict Techniques E Asmussen 75–96 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dingus TA, Guo F, Lee S, Antin JF, Perez M et al. 2016. Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. PNAS 113:2636–41
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dingus TA, Hankey JM, Antin JF, Lee SE, Eichelberger L et al. 2015. Naturalistic Driving Study: technical coordination and quality control Rep. S2-S06-RW-1 Transp. Res. Board Washington, DC:
  13. Dingus TA, Klauer SG, Neale VL, Petersen A, Lee SE et al. 2006. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study: Phase II—results of the 100-Car field experiment Rep. DOT HS 810 593 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp Washington, DC:
  14. Eenink R, Barnard Y, Baumann M, Augros X, Utesch F 2014. UDRIVE: The European naturalistic driving study Paper presented at Transport Research Arena 2014 Paris:
  15. Fitch GM, Soccolich SA, Guo F, McClafferty J, Fang Y et al. 2013. The Impact of Hand-held and Hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk Rep. DOT HS 811 757 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  16. Frobish D, Ebrahimi N 2009. Parametric estimation of change-points for actual event data in recurrent events models. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 52:671–82
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gettman D, Head L 2003. Surrogate safety measures from traffic simulation models. Transp. Res. Rec. 1840:104–15
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Glauz WD, Bauer K, Migletz DJ 1985. Expected traffic conflict rates and their use in predicting accidents. Transp. Res. Rec. 1026:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Guo F, Fang Y 2013. Individual driver risk assessment using naturalistic driving data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 61:3–9
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Guo F, Fang Y, Antin JF 2015. Older driver fitness-to-drive evaluation using naturalistic driving data. J. Safety Res. 54:49.e29–54
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Guo F, Hankey JM 2009. Modeling 100-Car safety events: a case-based approach for analyzing naturalistic driving data Rep., Natl. Surf. Transp. Saf. Cent. Excel., Va. Tech. Transp. Inst. Blacksburg, VA:
  22. Guo F, Kim I, Klauer SG 2019. Semiparametric Bayesian models for evaluating time-variant driving risk factors using naturalistic driving data and case-crossover approach. Stat. Med. 38:160–74
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Guo F, Klauer SG, Fang Y, Hankey JM, Antin JF et al. 2017. The effects of age on crash risk associated with driver distraction. Int. J. Epidemiol. 46:258–65
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Guo F, Klauer SG, Hankey JM, Dingus TA 2010a. Near crashes as crash surrogate for naturalistic driving studies. Transp. Res. Rec. 2147:66–74
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Guo F, Klauer SG, McGill MT, Dingus TA 2010b. Evaluating the relationship between near-crashes and crashes: Can near-crashes serve as a surrogate safety metric for crashes? Rep. DOT HS 811 382 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  26. Guo F, Simons-Morton BG, Klauer SE, Ouimet MC, Dingus TA, Lee SE 2013. Variability in crash and near-crash risk among novice teenage drivers: a naturalistic study. J. Pediatr. 163:1670–76
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hankey JM, Perez MA, McClafferty JA 2016. Description of the SHRP 2 naturalistic database and the crash, near-crash, and baseline data sets Rep., Va. Tech. Transp. Inst. Blacksburg, VA:
  28. Hanowski RJ, Bowman D, Alden A, Wierwille WW, Carroll R 2008. PERCLOS+: Moving beyond single-metric drowsiness monitors SAE Tech. Pap. 0148–7191 Va. Tech. Transp. Inst. Blacksburg, VA:
  29. Heinrich HW, Petersen DC, Roos NR, Hazlett S 1980. Industrial Accident Prevention: A Safety Management Approach New York: McGraw-Hill
  30. Hickman JS, Hanowski RJ, Bocanegra J 2010. Distraction in commercial trucks and buses: assessing prevalence and risk in conjunction with crashes and near-crashes Rep. FMCSA-RRR-10–049 Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Adm., US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  31. Jonasson JK, Rootzén H 2014. Internal validation of near-crashes in naturalistic driving studies: a continuous and multivariate approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 62:102–09
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kalra N, Paddock SM 2016. Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 94:182–93
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim S, Chen Z, Zhang Z, Simons-Morton BG, Albert PS 2013. Bayesian hierarchical Poisson regression models: an application to a driving study with kinematic events. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 108:494–503
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Klauer SG, Dingus TA, Neale VL, Sudweeks JD, Ramsey DJ 2006. The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: an analysis using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data Rep. DOT HS 810 594 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  35. Klauer SG, Guo F, Simons-Morton BG, Ouimet MC, Lee SE, Dingus TA 2014. Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. New Engl. J. Med. 370:54–59
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Klauer SG, Guo F, Sudweeks JD, Dingus TA 2010. An analysis of driver inattention using a case-crossover approach on 100-Car data Rep. DOT HS 811 334 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  37. Knipling RR. 2015. Naturalistic driving events: no harm, no foul, no validity Paper presented at the Eighth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design Salt Lake City, UT:
  38. Laureshyn A, Svensson Å, Hydén C 2010. Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioural data: theoretical framework and first implementation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42:1637–46
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lawless JF. 1987. Negative binomial and mixed Poisson regression. Can. J. Stat. 15:209–25
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Li Q, Guo F, Kim I, Klauer SG, Simons-Morton BG 2018. A Bayesian finite mixture change-point model for assessing the risk of novice teenage drivers. J. Appl. Stat. 45:604–25
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Li Q, Guo F, Klauer SG, Simons-Morton BG 2017. Evaluation of risk change-point for novice teenage drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 108:139–46
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lu G, Liu M, Wang Y, Yu G 2012. Quantifying the severity of traffic conflict by assuming moving elements as rectangles at intersection. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 43:255–64
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Maclure M. 1991. The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am. J. Epidemiol. 133:144–53
    [Google Scholar]
  44. McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C et al. 2005. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. BMJ 331:428–28
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Minderhoud MM, Bovy PHL 2001. Extended time-to-collision measures for road traffic safety assessment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 33:89–97
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mittleman MA, Maclure M, Robins JM 1995. Control sampling strategies for case-crossover studies: an assessment of relative efficiency. Am. J. Epidemiol. 142:91–98
    [Google Scholar]
  47. NHTSA (Natl. Highw. Traffic Saf. Adm.) 2012. Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices Docket NHTSA-2010-0053 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  48. NHTSA (Natl. Highw. Traffic Saf. Adm.) 2013. National motor vehicle crash causation survey: report to Congress Rep. DOT HS 811 059 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  49. NHTSA (Natl. Highw. Traffic Saf. Adm.) 2015. Traffic safety facts: motor vehicle traffic crashes as a leading cause of death in the United States, 2010 and 2011 Rep. DOT HS 812 203 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC
    [Google Scholar]
  50. NHTSA (Natl. Highw. Traffic Saf. Adm.) 2017. Traffic safety facts 2015: a compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the general estimates system Rep. DOT HS 812 384 NHTSA, US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  51. Olson RL, Hanowski R, Hickman J, Bocanegra J 2009. Driver distraction in commercial vehicle operations Rep. FMCSA-RRR-09–042 Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Adm., US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  52. Ouimet MC, Brown TG, Guo F, Klauer SG, Simons-Morton BG et al. 2014. Higher crash and near-crash rates in teenaged drivers with lower cortisol response an 18-month longitudinal, naturalistic study. JAMA Pediatr 168:517–22
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Owens JM, Dingus TA, Guo F, Fang Y, Perez M, McClafferty J 2018. Crash risk of cell phone use while driving: a case-crossover analysis of naturalistic driving data AAA Found. Traffic Saf. Washington, DC:
  54. Parker MR, Zegeer CV 1989a. Traffic conflict techniques for safety and operations—observers manual Rep. FHWA-IP-88–02 Fed. Highw. Adm., US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  55. Parker MR, Zegeer CV 1989b. Traffic conflict techniques for safety and operations: Engineers guide Rep. FHWA/RD-84/042 Fed. Highw. Adm., US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  56. Perkins SR, Harris JL 1968. Traffic conflict characteristics-accident potential at intersections. Highway Res. Rec. 225:35–43
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Prentice RL. 1986. A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 73:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ 1997. Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New Engl. J. Med. 336:453–58
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Simons-Morton BG, Cheon K, Guo F, Albert P 2013. Trajectories of kinematic risky driving among novice teenagers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 51:27–32
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Simons-Morton BG, Ouimet MC, Zhang ZW, Klauer SE, Lee SE et al. 2011. Crash and risky driving involvement among novice adolescent drivers and their parents. Am. J. Public Health 101:2362–67
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Simons-Morton BG, Zhang Z, Jackson JC, Albert PS 2012. Do elevated gravitational-force events while driving predict crashes and near crashes. Am. J. Epidemiol. 175:1075–79
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Smadi O, Hawkins N, Hans Z, Bektas BA, Knickerbocker S et al. 2015. Naturalistic driving study: development of the Roadway Information Database Rep. S2-S04A-RW-1 Transp. Res. Board Washington, DC:
  63. Smith BM, Dyer CR, Chitturi MV, Lee JD 2017. Automatic driver head state estimation in challenging naturalistic driving videos. Transp. Res. Rec. 2663:48–56
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Tarko AP. 2012. Use of crash surrogates and exceedance statistics to estimate road safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 45:230–40
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Taylor JMG, Cumberland WG, Sy JP 1994. A stochastic model for analysis of longitudinal AIDS data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 89:727–36
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Topp HH. 1996. Traffic safety work with video processing Transp. Dep., Univ Kaiserslautern:
  67. Treat JR, Tumbas N, McDonald S, Shinar D, Hume R et al. 1979. Tri-level study of the causes of traffic accidents: final report. Executive summary Rep., Inst. Res. Public Saf. Bloomington, IN:
  68. van Dongen HP, Jackson ML, Belenky G 2010. Duration restart period needed to recycle with optimal performance: phase II Rep. FMCSA-MC-RRR-10-062 Fed. Motor Carrier Saf. Adm., US Dep. Transp. Washington, DC:
  69. Victor T, Dozza M, Bärgman J, Boda C-N, Engström J et al. 2015. Analysis of naturalistic driving study data: safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk Rep. 0309274230, Transp. Res. Board Washington, DC:
  70. Vogel K. 2003. A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Accid. Anal. Prev. 35:427–33
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Wu K-F, Jovanis PP 2013. Defining and screening crash surrogate events using naturalistic driving data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 61:10–22
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-105153
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-105153
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error