AL
Aliaksei Laureshyn
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
6 records found
1
Safe System maturity and Safe System readiness in three European and three African countries
A comparison of an emerging versus a mature context
Journal article
(2026)
-
Tor Olav Nævestad, Enoch F. Sam, Haneen Farah, Daniel Mwamba, Jaqueline Masaki, Aliaksei Laureshyn, Matilda Magnusson, Thomas Miyoba, Laxman Singh Bisht, More Authors
The study provides a comparison of Safe System maturity and Safe System readiness in three European countries (Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands) and three African countries (Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia), based on document studies and focus group discussions (n = 73 interviewees and n = 44 interviewees). Safe System maturity refers to the level of Safe System implementation related to national road safety management, while the readiness assessment focuses on the factors influencing maturity. The study develops a model to assess Safe System readiness. Interviewees in the focus groups discussions in the African countries discussed insufficient implementation from the position of an emerging Safe System context, where factors like insufficient economic resources, corruption and insufficient institutional robustness limit Safe System implementation. Interviewees in the European countries discussed insufficient implementation from a mature Safe System context. These countries have had considerable reductions in fatal accidents since they implemented Safe System policies, but there is still room for improvement. Interviewees in the European countries generally indicated that they know what is needed to reach the Safe System, but that societal factors are constraining this implementation (e.g. cultural focus on freedom to take risk, lacking political sense of urgency related to road safety). There are several very effective measures that are not being used in the European countries, because factors like explicit political choices, goal conflicts and values limit Safe System implementation. The study concludes that there are considerable implementation barriers in both the emerging and the mature Safe System context, although they differ in nature.
...
The study provides a comparison of Safe System maturity and Safe System readiness in three European countries (Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands) and three African countries (Ghana, Tanzania, Zambia), based on document studies and focus group discussions (n = 73 interviewees and n = 44 interviewees). Safe System maturity refers to the level of Safe System implementation related to national road safety management, while the readiness assessment focuses on the factors influencing maturity. The study develops a model to assess Safe System readiness. Interviewees in the focus groups discussions in the African countries discussed insufficient implementation from the position of an emerging Safe System context, where factors like insufficient economic resources, corruption and insufficient institutional robustness limit Safe System implementation. Interviewees in the European countries discussed insufficient implementation from a mature Safe System context. These countries have had considerable reductions in fatal accidents since they implemented Safe System policies, but there is still room for improvement. Interviewees in the European countries generally indicated that they know what is needed to reach the Safe System, but that societal factors are constraining this implementation (e.g. cultural focus on freedom to take risk, lacking political sense of urgency related to road safety). There are several very effective measures that are not being used in the European countries, because factors like explicit political choices, goal conflicts and values limit Safe System implementation. The study concludes that there are considerable implementation barriers in both the emerging and the mature Safe System context, although they differ in nature.
Safe system implementation in three African and three European countries
Preliminary results from a comparison of six countries
Journal article
(2025)
-
Tor Olav Nævestad, Enoch F. Sam, Lars E. Egner, Thomas Miyoba, Laxman Singh Bisht, Haneen Farah, Daniel Mwamba, Jaqueline Masaki, Aliaksei Laureshyn, Matilda Magnusson, Andras Varhelyi, Rune Elvik, Jenny Blom
The study provides preliminary results from a case comparison of road safety management in three African countries (Tanzania, Ghana, Zambia) with three EU countries, all with a great track record of excellence in traffic safety and practicing Safe Systems principles (Norway and Netherlands & Sweden), based on document analysis and qualitative interviews. Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands are early adopters of what has been termed the Safe System Approach (termed "Sustainable safety"in the Netherlands). Norway and Sweden have the highest road safety level in world. The objectives of the study are to: 1) Examine the alignment with Safe System principles in the road safety management systems in each country, and 2) Discuss possible policy implications. The study is based on document analyses and focus group interviews with road safety experts (n=73) in the six countries. The European countries' road safety management systems are mainly in line with the Safe Systems principles for road safety management. In the three African countries, we find an insufficient systematic approach and a lower level of implementation of existing plans, mostly related to insufficient data on accidents, low institutional road safety influence and lacking funding. We discuss possible policy implications for the three African countries.
...
The study provides preliminary results from a case comparison of road safety management in three African countries (Tanzania, Ghana, Zambia) with three EU countries, all with a great track record of excellence in traffic safety and practicing Safe Systems principles (Norway and Netherlands & Sweden), based on document analysis and qualitative interviews. Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands are early adopters of what has been termed the Safe System Approach (termed "Sustainable safety"in the Netherlands). Norway and Sweden have the highest road safety level in world. The objectives of the study are to: 1) Examine the alignment with Safe System principles in the road safety management systems in each country, and 2) Discuss possible policy implications. The study is based on document analyses and focus group interviews with road safety experts (n=73) in the six countries. The European countries' road safety management systems are mainly in line with the Safe Systems principles for road safety management. In the three African countries, we find an insufficient systematic approach and a lower level of implementation of existing plans, mostly related to insufficient data on accidents, low institutional road safety influence and lacking funding. We discuss possible policy implications for the three African countries.
Journal article
(2023)
-
Torkel Bjørnskau, Ole Aasvik, Tim De Ceunynck, Aslak Fyhri, Marjan Hagenzieker, Carl Johnsson, Aliaksei Laureshyn
Abstract
(2022)
-
Torkel Bjørnskau, Aslak Fyhri, Ole Johansson, Tim De Ceunynck, Brecht Pelssers, Marjan Hagenzieker, Aliaksei Laureshyn, Daria Ivina
Background
Trials with automated mini buses (AV shuttles) are going on in many cities. According to game-theoretic reasoning, in mixed traffic normal road users will soon take advantage of the defensive driving style of the AV shuttles, and may eventually totally block their accessibility (Camara et al., 2018; Michieli & Badia, 2018; Millard-Ball, 2018). So far there are few studies on the interaction between AV shuttles and ordinary road users. The present study is probably the first to look at changes in interaction patterns with AV shuttles in real traffic over time, making it possible to empirically test the predictions based on game theory.
Method
In order to study ordinary road users’ interaction with AV shuttles, and whether interaction patterns change over time, evidence from two Norwegian pilots at Kongsberg and in Oslo, have been collected. Field surveys and video recordings have been conducted at both places and repeated over several months to measure any changes in behaviour.
Results
Results from survey analyses show very small changes in pedestrians’ interactions with the AV shuttles over time, whereas cyclists seem increasingly to take advantage of the defensive driving style of the AV shuttles. Video data will be analyzed during spring 2020 and results will be presented at the conference. Possible mechanisms producing the differences between cyclists’ and pedestrians’ interactions with the AV shuttles, will also be presented and discussed at the conference.
Conclusions
Survey results show that pedestrian interaction with AV shuttles do not confirm with the hypothesis based on game theoretic modelling. However, cyclist interaction seems to change over time in line with the game theoretic expectations.
...
Background
Trials with automated mini buses (AV shuttles) are going on in many cities. According to game-theoretic reasoning, in mixed traffic normal road users will soon take advantage of the defensive driving style of the AV shuttles, and may eventually totally block their accessibility (Camara et al., 2018; Michieli & Badia, 2018; Millard-Ball, 2018). So far there are few studies on the interaction between AV shuttles and ordinary road users. The present study is probably the first to look at changes in interaction patterns with AV shuttles in real traffic over time, making it possible to empirically test the predictions based on game theory.
Method
In order to study ordinary road users’ interaction with AV shuttles, and whether interaction patterns change over time, evidence from two Norwegian pilots at Kongsberg and in Oslo, have been collected. Field surveys and video recordings have been conducted at both places and repeated over several months to measure any changes in behaviour.
Results
Results from survey analyses show very small changes in pedestrians’ interactions with the AV shuttles over time, whereas cyclists seem increasingly to take advantage of the defensive driving style of the AV shuttles. Video data will be analyzed during spring 2020 and results will be presented at the conference. Possible mechanisms producing the differences between cyclists’ and pedestrians’ interactions with the AV shuttles, will also be presented and discussed at the conference.
Conclusions
Survey results show that pedestrian interaction with AV shuttles do not confirm with the hypothesis based on game theoretic modelling. However, cyclist interaction seems to change over time in line with the game theoretic expectations.
Journal article
(2022)
-
Tim De Ceunynck, Brecht Pelssers, Torkel Bjørnskau, Ole Aasvik, Aslak Fyhri, Aliaksei Laureshyn, Carl Johnsson, Marjan Hagenzieker, Heike Martensen
The current paper presents the results of behavioural observations in a field experiment with automated shuttles in Oslo, Norway. Video observations were conducted at five fixed locations along a challenging 1.2 km automated shuttle line with varying traffic conditions. Observed interactions between vulnerable road users and automated shuttles were coded using a predefined codebook, which allowed a structured quantitative analysis. The paper identified several potentially risky types of situations in which the automated shuttles did not always behave according to the traffic rules. Generally, the automated shuttles failed to give way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings in 26%–50% of the interactions. Right-turning shuttles failed to yield to cyclists going straight in 38% of the interactions at observation Site 1 (the only location where the automated shuttle takes a right turn). In majority of same direction interactions between cyclists and automated shuttles, the interactions resulted in the cyclist overtaking the automated shuttle, usually on the left-hand side. Generally, the paper found little evidence of road users trying to bully or otherwise take advantage of the defensive driving style of the automated shuttles and identified only a limited number of interactions in which a vulnerable road user behaved ignorant or aggressive towards the automated shuttles. In addition, the paper found very little indication of temporal effects that suggest changes in the interaction patterns over time.
...
The current paper presents the results of behavioural observations in a field experiment with automated shuttles in Oslo, Norway. Video observations were conducted at five fixed locations along a challenging 1.2 km automated shuttle line with varying traffic conditions. Observed interactions between vulnerable road users and automated shuttles were coded using a predefined codebook, which allowed a structured quantitative analysis. The paper identified several potentially risky types of situations in which the automated shuttles did not always behave according to the traffic rules. Generally, the automated shuttles failed to give way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings in 26%–50% of the interactions. Right-turning shuttles failed to yield to cyclists going straight in 38% of the interactions at observation Site 1 (the only location where the automated shuttle takes a right turn). In majority of same direction interactions between cyclists and automated shuttles, the interactions resulted in the cyclist overtaking the automated shuttle, usually on the left-hand side. Generally, the paper found little evidence of road users trying to bully or otherwise take advantage of the defensive driving style of the automated shuttles and identified only a limited number of interactions in which a vulnerable road user behaved ignorant or aggressive towards the automated shuttles. In addition, the paper found very little indication of temporal effects that suggest changes in the interaction patterns over time.
Are collision and crossing course surrogate safety indicators transferable?
A probability based approach using extreme value theory
Journal article
(2020)
-
Attila Borsos, Haneen Farah, Aliaksei Laureshyn, Marjan Hagenzieker
In order to overcome the shortcomings of crash data a number of surrogate measures of safety have been developed and proposed by various researchers. One of the most widely used temporal indicators is time-to-collision (TTC) which requires the road users to be on a collision course. Road users that are strictly speaking not on a collision course actually might behave and take evasive actions as if they were, thus indicating that such near-miss situations might also be relevant for safety analysis. Taking that into account, a more flexible indicator T2, which does not require the two vehicles to be on a collision course, describes the expected time for the second road user to arrive at the conflict point. Recently extreme value theory (EVT) offering two approaches, block maxima (BM) and Peak over Threshold (POT), has been applied in combination with surrogate indicators to estimate crash probabilities. Most of this research has focused on testing BM and POT as well as validating various surrogate safety indicators by comparing model estimates to actual crash frequencies. The comparison of collision course indicators with indicators including crossing course interactions and their performance using EVT has not been investigated yet. In this study we are seeking answers to under what conditions these indicators perform better and whether they are transferable. Using data gathered at a signalized intersection focusing on left-turning and straight moving vehicle interactions our analysis concluded that the two indicators are transferable with stricter threshold values for T2 and that POT gives more reasonable results.
...
In order to overcome the shortcomings of crash data a number of surrogate measures of safety have been developed and proposed by various researchers. One of the most widely used temporal indicators is time-to-collision (TTC) which requires the road users to be on a collision course. Road users that are strictly speaking not on a collision course actually might behave and take evasive actions as if they were, thus indicating that such near-miss situations might also be relevant for safety analysis. Taking that into account, a more flexible indicator T2, which does not require the two vehicles to be on a collision course, describes the expected time for the second road user to arrive at the conflict point. Recently extreme value theory (EVT) offering two approaches, block maxima (BM) and Peak over Threshold (POT), has been applied in combination with surrogate indicators to estimate crash probabilities. Most of this research has focused on testing BM and POT as well as validating various surrogate safety indicators by comparing model estimates to actual crash frequencies. The comparison of collision course indicators with indicators including crossing course interactions and their performance using EVT has not been investigated yet. In this study we are seeking answers to under what conditions these indicators perform better and whether they are transferable. Using data gathered at a signalized intersection focusing on left-turning and straight moving vehicle interactions our analysis concluded that the two indicators are transferable with stricter threshold values for T2 and that POT gives more reasonable results.