Transportation Letters

The International Journal of Transportation Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytrl20

Influence of green signal countdown timer on

severe crash types at signalized intersections due
to red light violations

Madhumita Paul & Indrajit Ghosh

To cite this article: Madhumita Paul & Indrajit Ghosh (2020) Influence of green signal countdown
timer on severe crash types at signalized intersections due to red light violations, Transportation
Letters, 12:8, 528-539, DOI: 10.1080/19427867.2019.1651571

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1651571

Published online: 06 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 280

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytrl20
TRANSPORTATION LETTERS
2020, VOL. 12, NO. 8, 528–539
https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2019.1651571

Influence of green signal countdown timer on severe crash types at signalized

intersections due to red light violations
Madhumita Paul and Indrajit Ghosh
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, Roorkee, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Traffic conflicts at signalized intersections caused by red light violations (RLVs) present an enormous Signalized intersection; red
danger for severe crashes. This study proactively evaluates the efficacy of Green Signal Countdown light violation; green signal
Timer (GSCT) on RLVs and resulting right-angle and right turn related crashes (for left-hand driving) countdown timer; before-
after study; post
using Post Encroachment Time (PET). A before-after (B-A) with comparison group analysis is done
encroachment time
considering five 4-legged signalized intersections from Delhi, India comprising of with and without SCT
installations. RLV occurrences and maximum violation time during initial 10 s of red are more in the
absence of GSCT. Considering various RLV-related characteristics, Powered Two Wheelers (P2W) are found
to have the highest exposure in crash involvement for both timer conditions. Finally, B-A method shows
57.74% reduction in crossing conflicts due to the presence of GSCT at the sites. . Accordingly, SCT's
installation can be recommended as a cost-effective engineering countermeasure to reduce severe crash
types at signalized intersections.

Introduction without examining the safety aspects. SCT’s green component, i.e.
Green signal countdown timer (GSCT) is found to alter the driv-
Red light violation (RLV) is one of the major factors contributing
ing behavior at the end of the green signal (Devalla, Biswas, and
to motor vehicle crashes at urban signalized intersections. It takes
Ghosh 2015; Limanond, Prabjabok, and Tippayawong 2010; Chiou
places when a driver intentionally or unintentionally enters into
and Chang 2010; Fu et al. 2016; Biswas, Ghosh, and Chandra
the intersection from one of its approaches at the onset of red and
2017). Simultaneously, its absence or presence may affect the
involves in crash with another road user who has the right-of-way
occurrences of RLVs at the starting of red and thereby create the
(Baratian-Ghorghi, Zhou, and Zech 2016). As per the recent
potentials for severe crash types. Among such crashes, the most
statistics of the USA, an average of 719 people died each year
severe ones are the right-angle and right turn related crashes (for
between 2011 and 2015 in RLV-related crashes (American Traffic
left-hand drive) (Wang and Abdel-Aty 2007; Jin, Wang, and Chen
Solutions [ATSOL] 2017). In Thailand, 1702 red light running
2010). In this context, the goal of the present research is to assess
crashes at intersections were caused by drivers violating the red
the safety impacts of GSCT on severe crash types at major urban
light (Kanitpong et al. 2015; Jensupakarn and Kanitpong 2018).
signalized intersections. For this purpose, this study adopts the
To reduce this non-compliant driving behavior and resulting
before–after (B-A) with comparison group study design based on
crashes, several mitigation measures related to geometric changes,
Traffic Conflict Technique (TCT), which includes five signalized
change in signal timings, installations of contemporary traffic
intersections located in Delhi, consisting of both treatment and
control devices, e.g. red light cameras (RLCs) have been imple-
control sites (i.e. sites with and without SCT respectively).
mented during the last few decades. Although RLCs have increas-
Of late, TCT has been drawing enormous attention owing to its
ingly been used to enforce violations at intersections and
proactive nature and several drawbacks associated with traditional
discourage a driver running the red light, their presence is found
crash data based assessment (Gettman and Head 2003; Zheng,
to be associated with a higher number of minor rear-end collisions
Ismail, and Meng 2014; Sacchi and Sayed 2016; Paul and Ghosh
(Council et al. 2005; Persaud et al. 2005; Baratian-Ghorghi, Zhou,
2018). TCT monitors the real-time traffic interactions even before
and Zech 2016). In addition, RLCs are not always cost-
the crashes occur and has the benefit of determining the propen-
effectiveness considering their installations and maintenance
sity of resulting collisions at any road network including intersec-
(Chen and Warburton 2006).
tions. Its use for short term safety evaluation is well accepted
The application of driver warning indicators in terms of dis-
worldwide, although TCT does not show the general trend of
tance and time reference aids is currently quite common to help
crashes and the associated contributory variables. Furthermore,
drivers to make their decisions at signalized intersections. In
for certain types of conflict, the crash conflict relationship is
recent years, a cost-effective technological implementation,
ambiguous and the correctness of the conversion to expected
namely, signal countdown timer (SCT), has become increasingly
crash frequencies is doubtful. (Williams 1981; Laureshyn and
popular in numerous Asian including India, which operates as
Varhelyi 2018). Another significant point is that the police record
a time-warning system. Interestingly, this device was installed in
does not always enable for the correct identification of severe RLV
India with the objective of saving valuable fossil fuel when motor-
crashes. There may be few crashes per year but hundreds of RLV
ists are stuck at the red light. However, their installations at major
could have occurred at an intersection. Hence, it is essential to
signalized intersections of several Indian cities have been taken up

CONTACT Madhumita Paul paul.madhu05@gmail.com Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand
247667, India
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

adopt TCT in B-A with comparison group study design to evaluate
the efficacy of GSCT on RLV related severe crash types at signa-
lized intersections.
Background on safety assessment of GSCT
For more than a decade, countdown timers have been employed
continuously in the field as the advanced traveler information
systems, mostly in Asian cities. By displaying the remaining
signal timing to drivers, these digital timers are intended to
increase intersection capacities, reduce right-angle accidents
and anxiety of drivers standing in the queue (Long, Han, and
Yang 2011). Though, in reality, their expected effect, particu-
larly on driver behavior influencing traffic safety, came with
mixed realization to different researchers. A group of studies
concluded that the presence of GSCT helped to reduce (i) the
number of RLVs in China (Ma, Liu, and Yang 2010; Huang
et al. 2014), in Thailand (Limanond, Prabjabok, and
Tippayawong 2010), (ii) the percentage of cycles with RLVs
from 66.2% to 37.1% in Malaysia (Kidwai, Ibrahim, and
Karim 2005), from 59% to 31% in India (Sharma et al. 2011).
(iii) amber, red, red/amber running violations in Slovenia
(Rijavec, Zakovšek, and Maher 2013) and red running ratio in
Taiwan (Chiou and Chang 2010). A study conducted by Lum
and Halim (2006) in Singapore observed that GSCT reduced
RLVs by about 65% after 1.5-month of its installation. However,
its effectiveness disappeared after 7.5 months as the RLVs went
back to the before-GSCT scenario. Another study by Limanond,
Prabjabok, and Tippayawong (2010) concluded that the impact
of GSCT on reducing RLVs sustained over at least 12 months of
its installation. Ni and Li (2014) in China found that GSCT
helped to reduce rear-end crashes adjacent to the stop line
during the yellow time. In contrast, its presence led to
a higher number of RLVs in China (Long, Han, and Yang
2011), more number of cycles with RLV occurrences in
Malaysia (Ibrahim, Karim, and Kidwai 2008), increased risk
for rear-end crashes in Taiwan (Chiou and Chang 2010),
100% and 33% more crashes and injuries respectively in
Taiwan (Chen et al. 2007). Thus, it can be observed that
a number of studies had investigated the effect of GSCT on
intersection safety in terms of RLVs and occurrence of rear-end
crashes, although outcomes of these studies are contradictory.
However, no study assessed the influence of GSCT on severe
right-angle and right turn related crashes (for left-hand drive)
that also take place at signal controlled intersections. In case of
India, only two studies (Sharma et al. 2011; Biswas, Ghosh, and
Chandra 2017) investigated the effectiveness of these timers on
intersection efficiency and RLV characteristics by considering
one approach of the study sites which were randomly selected
without looking into crash data. Moreover, their studies did not
specifically evaluate the influence of countdown timer on inter-
section safety.
The present study is therefore the first attempt which examines
the effects of GSCT on RLVs at the onset of red and related crash
potentials proactively using B-A with comparison group method.
For the study purpose, traffic conflicts between violating and right-
of-way vehicles that occur during the phase transition period have
been analyzed both in the presence and absence of GSCT. The
conflict indicator, Post-Encroachment Time (PET) has been uti-
lized as it is the most efficient one for identifying conflicts between
cross traffic (Gettman and Head 2003; Mahmud et al. 2017). For
a RLV situation, it is represented as the time interval between two
TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 529
instances when the violating vehicle leaves a specific spatial spot,
and the right-of-way vehicle enters into it.
Methodology
As already noted, to fulfill the study objective, a before-after (B-A)
with comparison group analysis is performed at locations with and
without GSCT facilities in order to meet the study goal.
Historically, Empirical Bayes (EB) before–after method has seen
its broad implementation for assessing the efficacy of any safety
measure in response to a few weaknesses linked to the traditional
B-A method (Hauer 1997). However, the EB method has some
drawbacks which are as follows:
● It has a laborious methodological design
● It requires many reference sites, i.e. a large group of sites
where the subject treatment is absent, however, have similar
characteristics to those of the treatment sites. This require-
ment can increase the cost of data collection in order to get
additional information.
● The reference group needs to be selected carefully for devel-
oping a safety performance function in EB analysis. It creates
a problem when trying to select a suitable reference group
similar to the treatment sites.
Hence, B-A with comparison group study design is used consider-
ing a number of treatment and control sites. This technique helps
to separate out the impact of other compounding factors rather
than the subject treatment at the treated sites. It also controls for
the effect of Regression to Mean (RTM) bias by comparing sites
which received treatment to those which did not.
In the present study, initially, various RLV characteristics
observed at the study sites are examined for both with and without
GSCT situations and subsequently compared. Later, the effective-
ness of GSCT is evaluated using B-A with comparison group
method on the basis of observed crossing conflicts due to RLVs.
Figure 1 shows a data flow diagram of the methodology adopted in
this study.
Site selection
For the study purpose, intersections are selected from Delhi, India
primarily based on crash history, geometric configurations and traffic
conditions. At first, a number of intersections are shortlisted which
are the accident blackspots for the three successive years (2014–16)
according to the Delhi Traffic Police crash record, and have
a significant quantity of right-angle and right turn related crashes
(right turn right-angle and right turn head-on collisions). Later, for
conducting the B-A with comparison group analysis, five major
intersections situated on urban arterials with a comparable crash
history as well as road geometry are selected. All the selected sites
are having channelized left turn lanes, fixed phase signal and cycle
timings as well as a yellow time of 5 s. The study sites are further
referred to as IS-(i) in the following sections, where i = 1, 2, . . . n,
where n = number of intersections. The details of the intersection
locations along with signal timings and crash data are given in
Table 1.
The first two sites (IS-1 and IS-2) are the treatment sites having
SCTs for all the approaches. Since the SCTs at these sites have
been installed long ago, crash data for these sites is available only
for ‘after’ installation period. Assistance is sought from Delhi
Traffic Police to create ‘before’ condition by switching off the
530 M. PAUL AND I. GHOSH
Figure 1. Data Flow Diagram of the present work.
digital timers for more than a week. The other three sites belong to
the comparison group where the subject treatment (i.e. SCT) is not
present. As per the study requirement, real-time interactions
between vehicles due to RLVs are video recorded for both with
and without SCT scenarios. A map view of study sites and
a snapshot of site IS-2 are shown in Figure 2(a,b).
Data collection and extraction
For the present study, two types of data are collected – crash data
from Delhi Traffic Police and traffic data from the field. Crash data
contains a range of information such as time, date, precise location,
collision types and associated severities. By using crash data for 3
calendars years (2014–16), collision diagrams are prepared for all the
study sites. Figure 3 shows a sample collision diagram for site IS-3. It
can be observed that at the study site, IS-3, a number of right turn
right-angle collisions took place. Two crashes are found to have taken
place between EB and SB traffic, and two others between NB and WB
traffic. By diagnosing collision diagrams and signal phasing of each
site, it is perceived that RLV at the onset of red is the prime reason for
the occurrence of subject crashes at study locations. Although drivers
from certain approaches of the intersections are also involved in
RLVs, no crash has been reported. Nevertheless, all the approaches
of selected intersections are chosen for further analysis and RLV
behavior leading to various crossing movements are studied
thoroughly.
It is also found that the maximum number of right-angle and
right turn related crashes took place during different times of
the day and fewer happened at night. However, the nighttime
subject crashes are not associated with RLVs as these sites are
enabled with yellow flashing light between 10 pm and 6 am.
A thorough analysis of crash data reaffirmed that RLV is signifi-
cantly responsible for the occurrence of maximum amount of
subject crashes during daytime off-peak hours (6 am to 7 am, 12
noon to 4 pm) on weekdays. Consequently, traffic data collection
is carried out for both the treatment and comparison groups using
videography technique on weekdays during daytime off-peak
hours under good visibility conditions. To collect data from treat-
ment sites (IS-1 and IS-2), video recording is initially done for
‘after’ period i.e. when timers are switched on. Once these digital
displays are switched off by traffic police for more than a week,
‘before’ data is collected at these intersections during the same
time period to replicate the traffic environments (Limanond,
Prabjabok, and Tippayawong 2010; Biswas, Ghosh, and Chandra
2017). The latter situation basically represents ‘without’ GSCT
condition in the present study, as drivers have no information
regarding the remaining green time, similar to the situation when
the timers are not installed. Data collection at the comparison sites
(IS-3, IS-4 and IS-5) is also conducted twice. The complete data
collection process takes several days to record data from all the
approaches of the study sites, considering both before and after
situations.
Once the field survey is over, all the necessary information for
subsequent analyses such as traffic volume, vehicular composition,
number of RLV vehicles along with their categories, number of
cycles where RLVs occur, and PET between violating and right-of-
way vehicles are extracted from the videos. For the recording of
conflict data and obtaining the related PET values, captured video
is edited by dividing the entire conflict area into equal numbers of
square grids. These are prepared by using Autodesk Maya 3D and
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 531

later overlaid on the videos using a video editing software, Corel

50 + 5 + 45 + 5 + 55 + 5 + 70 + 5 + 65 + 5 + 55 + 5 + 45 + 5 + 55 + 5 + 45 + 5 + 35 + 5 + 80 + 5 + 45 + 5 + 65 + 5 + 70 + 5 + 35 + 5 + 30 + 5 + 70 + 5 + 65 + 5 + 45 + 5 + 35 + 5 +
195
VideoStudio Pro. The dimension of grids is selected in accordance

10.5
E-4’
SB

4
with the maximum width of commercial vehicles observed on
Indian roads i.e. 2.5 m x 2.5 m (Paul and Ghosh 2017, 2018).

Intersection-5 (IS-5)

185
10.5
E-3’
These grids are nothing but spatial spots located in the conflict

NB

1
area of the intersection through which two consecutive conflicting

Absent

235

31
vehicles traverse. Recorded videos are played on a large television

165
E-2’
WB
screen at a rate of 25 frames per second and two-time events t1 and

14

1
t2 are noted down to calculate the PET values. t1 is the time when
a violating vehicle just exits a particular grid of conflict zone at the

160
E-1’
14
EB

onset of red, and t2 represents the time when the front of a right

0
turning or through moving vehicle (right-of-way vehicle) just
185 enters the respective grid. The difference between these two-time
D-4’
10
SB

0
events t2 and t1 provides the PET value for a RLV situation.
Intersection-4 (IS-4)
Comparision Group

180

Analysis and results

D-3’
NB

12

2
Absent

220

To evaluate the effectiveness of GSCT on RLVs and resulting

37

crossing conflicts, a number of measures of effectiveness

140
D-2’
WB

13

(MOEs), namely, the number and percentage of RLV cycles, total

number of RLV vehicles and mean RLV per RLV cycle during the
150

initial 10 s of red time are identified. All MOE related information

D-1’
13
EB

are noted down for both before and after situations and sequen-
tially analyzed. As road geometry, ambient environment and signal
175

timing remain the same for both cases, any variation in RLV-
C-4’
12
SB

related characteristics and resulting conflicts can be attributable to

the GSCT display.
Intersection-3 (IS-3)

140
12.5
C-3’
NB

0
Absent

Characteristics of RLVs
225

46
185
C-2’

An empirical analysis has been carried out to comprehend the

WB

14

RLV characteristics of the study sites. For this purpose, each

approach of the junctions is taken into account irrespective of
175
C-1’

their contribution to RLV-related crashes. All MOEs are estimated

14
EB

for both before and after situations and provided in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that the number of observed cycles for different
180
13.5
B-4
SB

approaches is closer to each other as cycle length and green time of

0

all study sites are almost similar (as provided in Table 1).
Frequency and percentage of RLV cycles are found to be varying
Intersection-2 (IS-2)

190
13.5
B-3
NB

for different timer display conditions at the study sites. At IS-1, for
Present

four different approaches, percentage of RLV cycles reduces from

240

31

55.56 to 33.33%, 47.62 to 28.57%, 51.56 to 35.94%, and 46.88 to

180
15.5
WB
B-2

31.25% from before to after period. A similar phenomenon is also

observed at the other treatment site (IS-2). Additionally, it is
evident that the percentage of RLV is always on the higher side
170
Treatment Group

15.5
Table 1. Details of selected intersections along with crash records.

B-1
EB

at the control sites. The percentage of RLV cycles for the compar-
ison group with no SCTs is similar to the timer off situations at
165

treatment sites (IS-1b and IS-2b). This trend is consistent with the
A-4
SB

14

findings reported in a number of studies (Ma, Liu, and Yang 2010;

Limanond, Prabjabok, and Tippayawong 2010; Sharma et al. 2011;
Intersection-1 (IS-1)

180

Huang et al. 2014; Biswas, Ghosh, and Chandra 2017) whereas it

A-3
NB

14

contradicts several other studies (Ibrahim et al., 2008; Long, Han,

Present

240

40

and Yang 2011). For the treatment sites, a close look at Table 1
190

also reveals that approaches with a higher percentage of RLV

12.5
A-2
WB

cycles and greater frequency of violations had already experienced

a number of right-angle and right turn related crashes due to more
185
12.5

violations along them. It reiterates that RLV committed by vehicles

A-1
EB

along those approaches is the leading cause of such severe crashes

at the selected intersections.
Approach width (m)

right-turn related
No. of total crashes

crashes (3 years)
Timer Information

Green + Yellow +

No. of angle and

Another MOE, mean RLV per RLV cycle, which basically

Target approach

Cycle length (s)

Details of Sites

designates the intensity of RLV occurrences, is also calculated for

(3 years)
Red (s)

RLVs along the approaches of both treatment and comparison

Notation

group sites. This MOE is defined as the number of RLVs averaged

over all the cycles having at least one RLV in that cycle. At
532 M. PAUL AND I. GHOSH
Figure 2. (a) A map view of study sites (b) A snapshot of the study site 2.
treatment sites, it is found to be less in numbers for with GSCT
condition in comparison to without GSCT situation. To examine
the difference of this MOE between before and after GSCT instal-
lation situations in a statistical sense, two-sample t-test has been
performed for all the study approaches of treatment sites. In each
case, t calculated > t critical at 95% confidence level which indi-
cates a statistically significant difference between mean RLVs per
RLV cycle for different timer conditions along the same approach.
For the comparison group sites, this value is found to be on the
higher side for all the study approaches.
In short, if there are no timer displays, a greater number of violating
vehicles are found to enter the intersection at the onset of red rather
than stopping at the stop line. This is because drivers, in the absence of
timers, do not receive real-time information on the remaining time
before a signal indication changes. Hence, they do not alter their speed
while entering the intersection, leading to a higher propensity of RLV
events. However, the opposite scenario is observed for with GSCT
condition as most of the drivers utilize the end of green time informa-
tion to make better decisions while maneuvering.
Maximum violation time
To get an in-depth understanding of RLV characteristics for with
and without GSCT conditions, the maximum violation time of
RLVs during the initial 10 s of red time are compared for both the
timer scenarios. It is done by collecting the time information for
the instance when a vehicle along an approach crosses the stop line
after seeing the red indication. The temporal distribution of RLV
events observed at treatment and comparison sites for both before
and after conditions are provided in Figures 4 and 5.
Figure 4 shows that for all the approaches of treatment sites,
maximum RLVs take place within 0 to 0.5 s interval of the initial
red indication during GSCT on condition. In the presence of timers,
violators are found to pass the stop line up to the first 5.5 s of red
interval. For the timer off scenario at treatment sites, most of the
RLVs occur between the time interval of (0.5–1.0) s and (1.0–1.5) s. A
similar phenomenon is observed for the comparison group consider-
ing both before and after periods (as evident from Figure 5(a–f)).
Additionally, for the without timer situation, the maximum violation
time is observed in the range of 7–7.5 s both at treatment and
comparison sites. Thus, it is observed that a comparatively higher
number of vehicles make a late entry into the intersections when the
digital display is absent. Contrarily, in the presence of GSCT, most of
the RLV vehicles enter into intersections during the first few seconds
of initial red time. This observation is consistent with the findings of
a few previous studies (Limanond, Prabjabok, and Tippayawong
2010; Sharma et al. 2011; Biswas, Ghosh, and Chandra 2017).
However, the present outcome is contradictory to the findings of
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 533

Figure 3. Collision diagram of IS-3 for the year of 2015.

Table 2. Characteristics of RLVs for before and after periods.

Parameters
Site Timer condition Timer display at approaches # of observed cycles # of RLV cycles % of RLV cycles # of RLV vehicles # mean RLV per RLV cycle
IS-1 IS-1b A-1b to A-4b 60–61 30–35 49.18–58.33 78–104 2.60–2.97
IS-1a A-1a to A-4a 18–23 30–37.70 28–40 1.56–1.90
IS-2 IS-2b B-1b to B-4b 60–61 32–38 52.46–62.30 89–113 2.78–2.97
IS-2a B-1a to B-4a 19–24 31.67–39.34 25–38 1.32–1.62
IS-3 IS-3b C-1b to C-1b 63–64 33–39 51.56–60.94 88–107 2.63–3.00
IS-3a C-1a to C-1a 31–37 48.44–57.81 73–113 2.51–2.89
IS-4 IS-4b D-1b to D-1b 64–65 35–40 54.69–61.54 79–100 1.98–2.97
IS-4a D-1a to D-1a 35–40 52.31–61.54 85–99 2.24–2.65
IS-5 IS-5b E-1b to E-1b 60–61 34–38 56.67–62.30 83–110 2.44–2.89
IS-5a E-1a to E-1a 31–37 51.67–60.66 81–94 2.29–2.82
‘b’ and ‘a’ refer to before and after GSCT installation situations respectively
A-1 to A-4 represent four consecutive approaches of intersection IS-1

Long, Han, and Yang (2011) where researchers concluded that the
presence of timers encouraged the drivers to make a late entry at the
intersection leading to risky RLVs.
Distribution of rlvs for each vehicle class
In India, the traffic condition is highly heterogeneous in nature as
different vehicle categories with diverse static and dynamic char-
acteristics use the same road facility. Hence, it is anticipated that
RLV characteristics may also vary from one vehicle class to
another. Observed vehicles at the sites are classified into 5 different
categories. While LCV designates pick-up trucks and vans, HV
category comprises of buses and trucks. In order to gain a better
insight into RLV behavior of different vehicle classes, RLV events
for each vehicle type during initial 10 s of red are observed at each
site for both with and without timer scenarios and provided in
Table 3.
RLV rate in the above table is defined as the number of RLV
vehicles divided by the total flow. It can be seen that the highest
RLV rates have been contributed by the Powered Two Wheelers
534 M. PAUL AND I. GHOSH
Figure 4. Time distribution of RLV occurrences during initial red at treatment sites.
(P2W) across all sites for both before and after conditions.
The second highest rates are observed for the car, however, it
is quite less as compared to P2W. M3W is responsible for further
lower numbers of RLVs and RLV rates, followed by LCV for
both the timer conditions. No violations have been committed by
HV during the initial red time. The reason behind such lower or
no RLV instances for M3W, LCV and HV categories is that all of
them have less acceleration capabilities in comparison to Car and
P2W, which in turn discourages their drivers to enter the inter-
section during the phase transition period. Although M3W is
a small-sized vehicle, it is primarily used for carrying passengers
for a fare. Therefore, its drivers are quite conscious about pas-
senger comfort which restricts them to travel aggressively and
leads to lower occurrences of RLV. Compared to all other cate-
gories, HV has the largest size and least maneuverability. Hence,
it becomes very difficult for them to cross the entire conflict area
of the intersection when confronted with red light thus rendering
no RLV instances for this vehicle class. On the contrary, P2W is
having the smallest size and best maneuverability among all the
vehicles. At the same time, they have a tendency to move in
a zigzag manner in between other vehicles by disobeying the lane
discipline. Therefore, instead of stopping their vehicles during the
signal change, they find their ways to cross the intersection often
leading to RLV situations. Thus, P2Ws expose themselves to the
risk of severe crashes with those having the green indication. The
crash record also reveals that the involvement of P2Ws in subject
crashes is highest among all vehicle categories. When the com-
parison is done between two different scenarios of timer displays,
RLV events associated with a particular vehicle class are observed
to be higher during before period, i.e. for without GSCT
condition.
Safety impact of green signal countdown timer on likelihood
of RLV-related crashes
To perceive the safety impacts of GSCT, RLV events are further
analyzed proactively and resulting conflicts are thoroughly studied.
Initially, PET values are calculated for each conflict situation created
between violating and right-of-way vehicles. At all the sites, for both
before and after conditions, the PET values are found to be ranging
from > 0 to 5 s. These observed conflicts up to 5 s PET values have
been treated as critical ones in the present study. The is RLV
occurrences during the initial few seconds of red are responsible
for serious conflicts with traffic having the right-of-way, which often
cause severe injury/fatal crashes at signalized intersections.
Additionally, PET threshold of 5 s has the maximum use in previous
conflict analyses to identify critical crossing conflicts (Sayed, Brown,
and Navin 1994; Gettman et al. 2008; Caliendo and Guida 2012; Lee,
So, and Ma 2018). To understand the difference in conflict frequen-
cies between before and after periods of GSCT installation at treat-
ment sites, the distributions of average hourly conflicts (AHC) for
both the timer scenarios are prepared as shown in Figure 6. It also
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 535

1.262–1.813
1.120–1.668

1.082–1.689
0.456–0.620

1.071–1.536

1.001–1.376
1.007–1.252
0.984–1.563
0.276–0.527
1.01–1.504
RLV Rate
Total

6399–7291

6514–7715
6654–7722

6416–7713
6145–7271

6908–8208

6832–8088
7228–8523
7081–9528
7184–9064
Flow
RLV Rate

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
HV

104–164
100–164

111–146

106–178
156–256
192–256
72–148
97–145
73–101

70–124
Flow

0.230–0.732
0.200–0.482

0.00–0.217
0.00–0.434
0.00–0.180

0.00–0.290
0.00–0.376
0.00–0.179
RLV Rate

0.00

0.00
LCV

365–460
461–744

415–537

423–558
408–651

418–543
331–518
532–852
440–612

398–561
Flow

0.846–1.502
0.839–1.307

0.580–1.418
0.242–0.356

0.620–1.085

0.525–0.897
0.383–0.904
0.777–1.539

0.602–1.208
0.128–0.284
RLV Rate
CAR
Table 3. Distribution of RLVs class with respect to ‘before-after periods of GSCT installation’ considering entire 4-hour duration.

Figure 5. Time distribution of RLV occurrences during initial red at comparison sites.
3156–3782
3520–4052

3243–3854

3456–3968
3117–3725

3387–3956
3659–4254
3060–4063

3312–3822
3540–4224
Flow

contains the AHC distribution for comparison sites to comprehend

their B-A scenarios.
Figure 6 shows that there is a significant reduction in AHC at
the treatment sites (IS-1 and IS-2) during the after scenario in
0.087–0.3938

0.282–0.912
0.121–0.432
0.104–0.719
0.00–0.285

0.00–0.129

0.00–0.151
0.00–0.139
0.00–0.229
0.00–0.481
RLV Rate

comparison to before GSCT installation situation. For the treat-

ment group (IS-1 and IS-2), the percentage reduction in AHC
M3W

from before to after period is 61% and 68% respectively. No

such reduction is observed in AHC between before and after
329–710
662–754

561–925
701–897

728–836

645–712
659–730
556–960

517–874
552–832

periods at the control sites (IS-3, IS-4 and IS-5).

Flow

Traditionally, B-A with comparison group approach is carried

out on the basis of a statistical method, odds ratio (OR). This
statistical term is commonly used to compare the effect of treat-
1.481–2.906

2.279–2.553
1.060–1.425

2.385–2.993

2.208–2.861
1.854–2.741
1.582–2.368

2.192–3.207
0.644–1.119
2.454–2.760
RLV Rate

ment with respect to the comparison group. To investigate the

effectiveness of GSCT, ‘OR’ is calculated based on the AHC for
‘b’ and ‘a’ refer to before and after GSCT installation situations respectively

both treatment and comparison groups. An ‘OR’ value equals to 1

P2W

implies that all the changes in conflict counts at each treatment

1858–2100

2100–2457
1754–2408

2264–2804

2202–2672
2509–3012
2553–3604

2183–2463
2224–3524
2210–2450

site are similar to the observed changes at the comparison sites,

Flow

which means that a 100% change in the treatment site is solely due
to non-treatment factors. Whereas, ‘OR’ value of less than 1 and
greater than 1 indicate an appropriate and a harmful effect of
Timer display at approaches

applied treatment respectively (El-Basyouny and Sayed 2011;

Autey, Sayed, and Zaki 2012). This ratio illustrated in Equation
D-1b to D-4b
A-1b to A-4b

D-1a to D-4a
C-1b to C-4b
B-1b to B-4b
A-1a to A-4a

C-1a to C-4a

E-1b to E-4b
B-1a to B-4a

E-1a to E-4a

(1) is defined as the change in AHC at the treatment site divided

by change in comparison group considering before and after
periods.

TA;i=TB;i
ORi ¼ (1)
CA=CB
Timer condition

TA = AHC at treatment site (i) in after period,

IS-1b

IS-4b
IS-2b

IS-5b
IS-3b
IS-3a

IS-5a
IS-1a

IS-4a
IS-2a

TB = AHC at treatment site (i) in before period,

CA = AHC at comparison group in after period, and
CB = AHC at comparison group in before period
The treatment effect (TE) of GSCT at a treatment site (i) can be
IS-1

IS-4
IS-2

IS-5
IS-3
Site

calculated as Equation (2)

536 M. PAUL AND I. GHOSH

Where, zi = z-value for site (i) and N denotes a normal

distribution.
To determine the total treatment effect, both the treatment
sites (IS-1 and IS-2) as well as comparison group are combined
in a weighted average manner. Consequently, the statistical
significance of the treatment effect is determined. This weight-
ing is carried out with respect to the inverse variance of each
treatment site as well as the comparison group and shown in
Equation (5)

1
1 1 1 1
wi ¼ þ þ þ (5)
TA;i TB;i CA CB
Therefore, the total treatment ln(OR) for ‘n’ individual treatment
site can be expressed as
Pn
wi  lnðORi Þ
lnðORÞ ¼ i¼1 Pn (6)
i¼1 wi

If the weighting for each site is proportional to the inverse of the

asymptotic variance, then the z value for test statistics follows
a standard normal distribution as shown in Equation (7).
pX
n
z ¼ lnðORÞ wi ,N ð0; 1Þ (7)
i¼1

The null-hypothesis of treatment effect (H0: OR =1) is rejected

when the approximate tail probability of the standard normal
probability density function is found to be smaller than the
statistical significance level, represented by the p-value. The
Figure 6. Distribution of AHC at both treatment and comparision sites. statistical significance test result of the treatment effect is given
in Table 4.
‘OR’ values are estimated by using Equation (1) and con-
TEi ¼ 1  ORi (2) sidering the average hourly conflicts for both treatment and
comparison sites. For an individual as well as treatment sites
The percentage reduction in AHC can be found as TE ×100%. in a combined manner, OR is found to be less than 1. It
This represents the variation in conflict events observed at the confirms that GSCT contributes to the reduction of crossing
treatment site (i) after implementation of GSCT by controlling the conflicts at the treatment sites. Interestingly, when the effect of
time-trend effects estimated at the comparison sites. The percen- comparison group is taken into consideration to control the
tage reduction in conflicts due to GSCT at each treatment site is non-treatment conflict causal factors, the percentage reduction
given in Table 4. It is to note that the value of OR is always in AHC is observed to be 58.54% and 66.06% at IS-1 and IS-2
positive hence an assumption can be made that it follows a log- respectively. The reduction in AHC is also found to be signifi-
normal distribution. ln(OR) is then determined which is further cant at the 95% confidence interval for both the treatment sites
utilized to weight the OR among different treatment sites to as well as when it is carried out for conflicts considering both
determine the total treatment effect of GSCT. The standard error the sites together.
of ln(OR) for each treatment intersection (SEi) is estimated based
on the assumption that conflict events are rare and random in Treatment correction for traffic volume
nature and hence follow a Poisson distribution (Reyad et al. 2017). In order to assess the true effectiveness of any treatment, it is
The expression for SEi is shown as Equation (3) required to utilize a comparison group to account for the effect of

 any non-treatment factor, such as traffic volume (Hauer 1997).
p 1 1 1 1
SEi¼ þ þ þ (3) The average hourly volume for treatment group during before and
TA;i TB;i CA CB
after observational periods are 7767 and 7452 veh/hr respectively.
Hence asymptotically, For the comparison group, these are 7239 and 7568 veh/hr. As
traffic volume for both the treatment and comparison sites are
lnðORi Þ known, the effect of change in traffic volume can be controlled for
zi ¼ ,N ð0; 1Þ (4) explicitly. Subsequently, the present study follows the estimation
SEi
process suggested by Hauer (1997) to account for volume change.
The adjustment factors for change in traffic volume at compar-
ison and treatment sites, as well as the overall percentage reduc-
Table 4. Results of treatment effect (% reduction in AHC at treatment sites) based
on comparison groups.
tion in conflicts at the treatment group are estimated using the
following parameters listed between Equations (8)–(18).
Treatment odds TE in Statistically
Sites ratio % SE w z score p value Significant λ ¼ TA (8)
IS-1 0.388 58.54% 0.2235 20.018 −3.940 .000081. yes
IS-2 0.318 66.06% 0.2246 19.822 −4.811 <.00001 yes
Total 0.350 62.56% - 39.841 −6.186 <.00001 yes Var ðλÞ ¼ TA (9)
 TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 537

 
CA rTadj = Adjustment factor for change in average hourly traffic
CB
rT ¼ rC ¼   (10) volume at treatment group,
1 þ C1B TEVTA = Average hourly approaching volume at all the treat-
ment sites during after period, and
TEVTB = Average hourly approaching volume at treatment
VarðrT Þ 1 1 group during before period
¼ þ þ varðωÞ (11)
rT 2 CB CA This adjusted factor is then multiplied with before period AHC
for treatment group and can be replaced TB as TBadj . The expected
after period conflict data at treatment sites considering the sites do
π ¼ rT  TB (12)
not undergo any treatment (π) is obtained by replacing Equation
(12) with Equation (16):


1 VarðrT Þ π ¼ rT  TBadj
VarðπÞ ¼ π 2
þ (16)
TB rT 2
At the final stage, in order to determine the percentage reduction
Where, in conflicts at treatment group, two parameters are estimated
λ = Expected (observed) conflict counts at treatment group namely (i) index of effectiveness (θ) and (ii) variance of θ. Their
during after period, expressions are provided in the form of Equations (17) and (18)
Var (λ) = Variance of expected conflict frequency during after respectively.
period, λ
rT & rC = Ratio of expected conflict counts for treatment and θ ¼ π  if θ < 1; the treatment is effective (17)
comparison groups respectively, VarðπÞ
1þ π2
TB ; TA, CB , CA = Observed AHC at treatment and comparison
groups during before and after periods,  
varðωÞ = Variance of mean odds ratio can be expressed as θ2 VarðλÞ
þ Varπ2ðπÞ
λ2

 Var ðθÞ ¼  2 (18)
1 1 1 1
¼ s2 ðoÞ  þ þ þ ; if > 0 or 0 otherwise (13) 1 þ Varπ2ðπÞ
TB TA CB CA
s2(o) = Variance of odds ratios, The percentage reduction in conflict counts is estimated as 100 ×
π = Expected (predicted) conflict frequency at treatment sites (1-θ)
during after period considering no treatment has been Using Equations (17) and (18), the reduction rate at the treat-
implemented, ment group is found as 0.405 with a standard deviation of 0.07.
Var(π) = Variance of expected number of crashes in after Hence, the percentage reduction in average hourly conflicts at the
period without any treatment, treatment group (i.e. considering IS-1 and IS-2 together) is found
The adjustment factor for comparison sites can be expressed as to be 59.47% with a standard deviation of 7%. It implies that due
to implementation of GSCT at signalized intersections which
TEVAC;i possess characteristics similar to the present study sites, the
Cadj;i ¼ (14)
TEVBC;i expected reduction in conflicts can range from 52.47% to 66.47%
at 95% confidence interval. The estimated parameters for volume
Where, corrections are given below in Table 5.
Cadj;i = Adjustment factor for observed AHC during before Thus, the presence of GSCT is found to be responsible for
period at comparison site i, a significant reduction in the number of crossing conflicts due to
TEVAC;i = Average hourly approaching traffic volume at com- red light violations at the signalized intersections.
parison site i during after period, and
TEVBC;i = Average hourly approaching traffic volume at com-
parison site i during before period Conclusions
In this study, the change in traffic volume is observed to be The current study proactively explores the impact of GSCT on
quite less between before and after periods and therefore, a linear serious kinds of crash owing to RLVs using a traffic conflict based
relationship between the expected conflict frequency and traffic before-after (B-A) with comparison group study method. Five
volume provides a very close approximation for such small 4-legged urban signalized intersections situated in Delhi compris-
changes in volumes (Fayish and Gross 2010). The estimated Cadj ing of with and without SCT are selected, which have suffered
of each comparison site is then multiplied with AHC observed a number of right-angle and right-turn related crashes over the
during before period of the respective site. These adjusted before past three years showing an important RLV issue. Afterwards,
and period AHC for all the comparison sites are then summed up a comparative B-A safety analysis is performed between treatment
to get expected before period conflicts at comparison group
(CB adj). This adjusted parameter is incorporated in Equations
(10) and (11) by replacing CB . Table 5. Details of estimated parameters for volume correction.
In the next step, an adjustment factor for change in traffic Parameters Estimate
volume from before to after period at treatment group is deter- λ = Var (λ) 63
mined using Equation (15). This adjustment also assumes a linear π 153.49
relationship between conflict events and traffic volume Var (π) 297.94
r T = rC 0.889
TEVTA Var (ω) 0
rTadj ¼ (15) θ 0.405
TEVTB
Var (θ) 0.0049
Where, 100× (1- θ) 59.47
538 M. PAUL AND I. GHOSH
and comparison groups for various RLV characteristics and result-
ing conflicts.
During ‘before’ situation at treatment sites, several RLV char-
acteristics such as frequency of RLVs, percentage of RLV cycles,
mean RLV per RLV cycle and maximum violation time of RLV
events during initial 10 s of red are observed to be on the higher
side compared to ‘after’ scenario. A similar trend is observed at the
comparison group sites where timers are not present during both
‘before’ and ‘after’ periods. By providing the remaining green time
information beforehand, GSCT gives drivers the confidence to
stop or proceed through the intersection and thus helps in making
a proper decision. From the distribution of RLVs with respect to
vehicle classes, the maximum number of RLV events and higher
RLV rates are observed to be contributed by the P2Ws and the
corresponding numbers are comparatively higher for ‘without’
GSCT conditions both for treatment and comparison groups.
There is no violation attempted by HVs for before and after
timer situations. The violations made by other vehicle classes are
also observed to be more when the timer is not present.
RLV events and resulting conflicts are further analyzed
proactively by calculating PET values for each conflict situation
created between violating and right-of-way vehicles. Later,
B-A with comparison group study has been conducted consid-
ering the average hourly conflicts (AHC) observed during both
before and after periods at treatment as well as comparison
sites. The overall reduction in AHC for the treatment group is
estimated to be 62.56%. Additionally, at each treatment site (IS-
1 and IS-2), this reduction is observed as 58.54% and 66.06%
respectively. For all the cases, the reduction in AHC is also
found to be significant at the 95% confidence interval.
However, a slight difference in traffic volume is observed for
both treatment and comparison groups during before and after
periods. After adjustment in traffic volume, the percentage
reduction in conflicts for the treatment group is found to be
59.47% with a standard deviation of 7%. It indicates that due to
implementation of GSCT at signalized intersections which are
characteristically similar to the present study sites, the expected
reduction in average hourly conflicts can range from 52.47% to
66.47% at 95% confidence interval.
Hence, the present study demonstrated that GSCT is an efficient
safety device for reducing RLVs, maximum violation time at the
onset of red and the proportion of associated crossing conflicts.
This is the first kind of study which has shed light on RLV occur-
rences and related severe crash potentials considering real-time inter-
actions of vehicles. Because of the benefits associated with GSCT
display in terms of intersection safety, SCTs can be recommended
for installation as a cost-effective engineering countermeasure for
prevention of RLV and improving safety at signalized intersections
without implementing any other expensive countermeasures or tech-
nology (e.g. red light camera). Further research can take place in
different cities of India and other developing countries by considering
more intersections of distinct traffic and geometric conditions. This
study can also be carried out using relevant proximal safety indicators
for other RLV-related crash types such as rear-end collisions. To
address the issue of timeliness associated with empirical work, this
study can be conducted using any microsimulation tool such as PTV
VISSIM (Lee, So, and Ma 2018; Paul, Pakhariya, and Ghosh 2018).
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Accident Research Cell, Delhi Police: Traffic,
Traffic Police (HQ), Todapur, Delhi for sharing accident data used in this
research work.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare that they do not have any competing financial, profes-
sional, or personal interests from other parties.
Funding
This work was supported by the Science and Engineering Research Board
(SERB), Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and
Technology, Government of India under Grant SB/FTP/ETA-438/2012
ORCID
Indrajit Ghosh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1341-0258
References
American Traffic Solutions (ATSOL). 2017. “Red-Light Running Dangers in
the United States.” https://www.atsol.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/
ATS-RLR-Dangers-Cutsheet-2017.pdf
Autey, J., T. Sayed, and M. H. Zaki. 2012. “Safety Evaluation of Right-turn
Smart Channels Using Automated Traffic Conflict Analysis.” Accident
Analysis and Prevention 45: 120–130. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.11.015.
Baratian-Ghorghi, F., H. Zhou, and W. C. Zech. 2016. “Red-light Running
Traffic Violations: A Novel Time-based Method for Determining A Fine
Structure. Transportation Research Part A.” Policy and Practice 93: 55–65.
Biswas, S., I. Ghosh, and S. Chandra. 2017. “Influence of Signal Countdown
Timer on Efficiency and Safety at Signalized Intersections.” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 44 (4): 308–318. doi: 10.1139/cjce-2016-0267.
Caliendo, C., and M. Guida. 2012. “Microsimulation Approach for Predicting
Crashes at Unsignalized Intersections Using Traffic Conflicts.” Journal of
Transportation Engineering 138 (12): 1453–1467. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
TE.1943-5436.0000473.
Chen, G., and R. N. Warburton. 2006. “Do Speed Cameras Produce Net
Benefits? Evidence from British Columbia, Canada.” Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management: the Journal of the Association for Public Policy
Analysis and Management 25 (3): 661–678. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6688.
Chen, I. C., K. K. Chang, C. C. Chang, and C. H. Lai 2007. “The Impact
Evaluation of Vehicular Signal Countdown Displays.” Research Report.
Taiwan: Institute of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation and
Communications. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
Chiou, Y. C., and C. H. Chang. 2010. “Driver Responses to Green and Red
Vehicular Signal Countdown Displays: Safety and Efficiency Aspects.”
Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (4): 1057–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.
aap.2009.12.013.
Council, F. M., B. N. Persaud, K. A. Eccles, C. Lyon, and M. S. Griffith 2005.
“Safety Evaluation of Red-light Cameras.” Report No. FHWA-HRT-05-048.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Devalla, J., S. Biswas, and I. Ghosh. 2015. “The Effect of Countdown Timer on
the Approach Speed at Signalised Intersections.” Procedia Computer Science
52: 920–925. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.05.166.
El-Basyouny, K., and T. Sayed. 2011. “A Full Bayes Multivariate Intervention
Model with Random Parameters among Matched Pairs for Before–After
Safety Evaluation.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (1): 87–94. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.07.015.
Fayish, A. C., and F. Gross. 2010. “Safety Effectiveness of Leading Pedestrian
Intervals Evaluated by a Before–After Study with Comparison Groups.”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 2198 (1): 15–22. doi: 10.3141/2198-03.
Fu, C., Y. Zhang, W. Qi, and S. Cheng. 2016. “Effects of Digital Countdown
Timer on Intersection Safety and Efficiency: A Systematic Review.” Traffic
Injury Prevention 17 (1): 98–103. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2015.1043128.
Gettman, D., and L. Head. 2003. “Surrogate Safety Measures from Traffic
Simulation Models.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board 1840: 104–115. doi:10.3141/1840-12.
Gettman, D., L. Pu, T. Sayed, and S. Shelby 2008. Surrogate Safety Assessment
Model and Validation: Final Report, No. FHWA HRT 08-051. Washington,
DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Hauer, E. 1997. Observational Before–After Studies in Road Safety: Estimating
the Effect of Highway and Traffic Engineering Measures on Road Safety.
Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press, Elsevier Science.
Huang, H., D. Wang, L. Zheng, and X. Li. 2014. “Evaluating Time-reminder
Strategies before Amber: Common Signal, Green Flashing and Green
Countdown.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 71: 248–260. doi: 10.1016/
j.aap.2014.05.018.

Ibrahim, M. R., M. R. Karim, and F. A. Kidwai. 2008. “The Effect of Digital
Countdown Display on Signalized Junction Performance.” American
Journal of Applied Sciences 5 (5): 479–482. doi: 10.3844/ajassp.2008.479.482.
Ibrahim, M. R., M. R. Karim, and F. A. Kidwai. 2008. “The Effect Of Digital
Count-down Display on Signalized Junction Performance.” American
Journal Of Applied Sciences 5 (5): 479-482. doi:10.3844/ajassp.2008.479.482.
Jensupakarn, A., and K. Kanitpong. 2018. “Influences of Motorcycle Rider and
Driver Characteristics and Road Environment on Red Light Running
Behavior at Signalized Intersections.” Accident Analysis and Prevention
113: 317–324. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.007.
Jin, Y., X. Wang, and X. Chen. 2010. “Right-angle Crash Injury Severity
Analysis Using Ordered Probability Models.” In International Conference
on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation (ICICTA),
Changsha, China, 3: 206–209. May 2010.
Kanitpong, K., A. Jensupakarn, P. Jensupakarn, and P. Jiwattanakulpaisarn.
2015. National Statistics of Traffic Accident in Thailand 2015. Bangkok,
Thailand: ThaiRoads Foundation.
Kidwai, F. A., M. R. Ibrahim, and M. R. Karim. 2005. “Traffic Flow Analysis of
Digital Count down Signalized Urban Intersection.” Journal of Mathematics
and Technology 5: 1301–1308.
Laureshyn, A., and A. Varhelyi. 2018. The Swedish Traffic Conflict Technique:
Observer’s Manual. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.
Lee, C., J. So, and J. Ma. 2018. “Evaluation of Countermeasures for Red Light
Running by Traffic Simulator–Based Surrogate Safety Measures.” Traffic
Injury Prevention 19 (1): 1–8. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2017.1328551.
Limanond, T., P. Prabjabok, and K. Tippayawong. 2010. “Exploring Impacts of
Countdown Timers on Traffic Operations and Driver Behavior at
a Signalized Intersection in Bangkok.” Transport Policy 17 (6): 420–427.
doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.009.
Long, K., L. D. Han, and Q. Yang. 2011. “Effects of Countdown Timers on
Driver Behavior after the Yellow Onset at Chinese Intersections.” Traffic
Injury Prevention 12 (5): 538–544. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2011.593010.
Lum, K. M., and H. Halim. 2006. “A Before-and-after Study on Green Signal
Countdown Device Installation.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour 9 (1): 29–41. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2005.08.007.
Ma, W., Y. Liu, and X. Yang. 2010. “Investigating the Impacts of Green Signal
Countdown Devices: Empirical Approach and Case Study in China.”
Journal of Transportation Engineering 136 (11): 1049–1055. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000181.
Mahmud, S. S., L. Ferreira, M. S. Hoque, and A. Tavassoli. 2017. “Application
of Proximal Surrogate Indicators for Safety Evaluation: A Review of Recent
Developments and Research Neesd.” IATSS Research 41: 153–163. IATSSR-
00140, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.iatssr.2017.02.001.
Ni, Y., and K. Li. 2014. “Estimating Rear-end Accident Probabilities at
Signalized Intersections: A Comparison Study of Intersections with and
TRANSPORTATION LETTERS 539
without Green Signal Countdown Devices.” Traffic Injury Prevention 15
(6): 583–590. doi:10.1080/15389588.2013.845752.
Paul, M., and I. Ghosh 2017. “Development of a New Speed Related Proximal
Indicator for Safety Assessment at Uncontrolled Intersections.” Paper pre-
sented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Paul, M., and I. Ghosh. 2018. “Speed-based Proximal Indicator for Right-turn
Crashes at Unsignalized Intersections in India.” Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part A: Systems 144 (6): 04018024. doi:10.1061/JTEPBS.0000139.
Paul, M., T. Pakhariya, and I. Ghosh 2018. “Traffic Calming and Management Based
Safety Evaluation at Unsignalized Intersection Using Microsimulation.”Paper
presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C.
Persaud, B., F. Council, C. Lyon, K. Eccles, and M. Griffith. 2005.
“Multijurisdictional Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras.”
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board 1922: 29–37. doi: 10.1177/0361198105192200105.
Reyad, P., E. Sacchi, S. Ibrahim, and T. Sayed. 2017. “Traffic Conflict–Based
Before–After Study with Use of Comparison Groups and the Empirical
Bayes Method.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, no. 1: 15–24. doi: 10.3141/2659-02.
Rijavec, R., J. Zakovšek, and T. Maher. 2013. “Acceptability of Countdown
Signals at an Urban Signalized Intersection and Their Influence on Drivers
Behavior.” PROMET-Traffic and Transportation 25 (1): 63–71. doi: 10.7307/
ptt.v25i1.1248.
Sacchi, E., and T. Sayed. 2016. “Conflict-Based Safety Performance Functions
for Predicting Traffic Collisions by Type.” Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2583: 50–55. doi: 10.3141/
2583-07.
Sayed, T., G. Brown, and F. Navin. 1994. “Simulation of Traffic Conflicts at
Unsignalized Intersections with TSC-Sim.” Accident Analysis and
Prevention 26 (5): 593–607.
Sharma, A., L. Vanajakshi, V. Girish, and M. S. Harshitha. 2011. “Impact of
Signal Timing Information on Safety and Efficiency of Signalized
Intersections.” Journal of Transportation Engineering 138 (4): 467–478.
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000343.
Wang, X., and M. Abdel-Aty. 2007. “Right-angle Crash Occurrence at
Signalized Intersections.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, no. 2019: 156–168. doi: 10.3141/2019-19.
Williams, M. J. 1981. “Validity of the Traffic Conflicts Technique.” Accident
Analysis and Prevention 13 (2): 133–145. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(81)90025-7.
Zheng, L., K. Ismail, and X. Meng. 2014. “Traffic Conflict Techniques for
Road Safety Analysis: Open Questions and Some Insights.” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 41 (7): 633–641. doi: 10.1139/cjce-
2013-0558.