Did that Pedestrian just hit the Car? Safety Monitoring of Peds and Idling Vehicles

Live from: ITE Annual Meeting & Exhibition 2022 - New Orleans
Using the Safe System Approach, pro-active safety analysis propels practitioners towards feasible Vision Zero road safety. While the technology has matured quickly for evaluation of safety in classical driving environments, our understanding and interpretation of proactive safety data is still evolving, particularly in more complex cases, such as pedestrians walking in very close proximity to idling motor vehicles (and in some instances involving literal conflicts).
Are the basic proactive safety indicators (i.e. PET, TTC) still appropriate in complex situations? What safety analysis framework is adapted to interpreting this safety data?
In this presentation, we will explore some of the challenges of proactive safety analysis in complex and dense traffic environments, and how choosing the right safety framework can help us overcome some of these challenges.

[@mjosep2984]

I don't think PET and Time to Accident are the same thing in the Swedish Traffic Conflict Technique. PET does not necessarily need a collision course, road user paths may intersect but not necessarily on a collision course. TTA in Swedish TCT has a collision course which much closer to Time to Collision with slight difference. TTC is more like being on a collision path for "some time" while TTA is the time when the evasive movement was made so in that instance the TTA and TTC could be equal.

[@TransoftSolutionsInc]

Thank you for the detailed differentiation between some of these measures. A key takeaway is that many dangerous interactions, including many crashes, involve no apparent evasive action at all (imagine both road users were distracted simultaneously). This is a key limitation of PET and TTA, that TTC is specifically designed to address.