Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433

A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators

Katja Vogel∗
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, S-581 95 Linköping, Sweden
Received 13 September 2001; received in revised form 21 January 2002; accepted 13 February 2002

Abstract
The two safety indicators “headway” and “time to collision (TTC)” are discussed and compared with respect to their usefulness in
determining the safety of different traffic situations, like different locations in a junction. Over a 6-day-period traffic flow measures were
taken in a four-way junction with stop signs on the minor road. It was found that for vehicles in a car following situation headway and TTC
are independent of each other. The percentage of small headways is relatively constant across different locations in the junction, while the
percentage of small TTC values varies between different locations. It is recommended to use headway for enforcement purposes, because
small headways generate potentially dangerous situations. TTC, on the other hand, should be used when a certain traffic environment is to
be evaluated in terms of safety, because it indicates the actual occurrences of dangerous situations.
© 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Safety assessment; Safety indicator; Time to collision; Headway

1. Introduction Different countries have slightly different rules with re-

Time headway (H) is one of the indicators that is used
to estimate the criticality of a certain traffic situation. It has
been defined as the elapsed time between the front of the
lead vehicle passing a point on the roadway and the front of
the following vehicle passing the same point (Evans, 1991,
p. 313). In some countries, this indicator is also used by
the authorities to impose fines for close following. Another
widely used safety indicator is time to collision (TTC), a
concept introduced by Hayward (1972). It indicates the time
span left before two vehicles collide, if nobody takes evasive
action. In this study, these two indicators will be compared,
both theoretically and in relation to empirical data.
1.1. Time headway
Time headway is measured by taking the time that passes
between two vehicles’ reaching the same location (see
Eq. (1)).
H = ti − ti−1
with ti denoting the time at which the vehicle i passes a
certain location and ti−1 the time at which the vehicle ahead
of vehicle i passes the same location.
∗ Tel.: +46-13-20-43-06; fax: +46-13-14-14-36.
E-mail address: katja.vogel@vti.se (K. Vogel).
gard to the legal or recommended safety distance. In the US,
e.g. several driver training programs (Michael et al., 2000)
state that it is impossible to follow a vehicle safely with
a headway of less than 2 s. In Germany, the recommended
minimum distance is “half the speedometer”, which means,
a car traveling at 80 km/h should keep a distance of at least
40 m. This rule translates to a recommended time headway
of 1.8 s. Fines are imposed when the time headway is smaller
than 0.9 s. In Sweden the National Road Administration rec-
ommends a time headway of 3 s in rural areas, and the po-
lice use a time headway of 1 s as orientation for imposing
fines.
Researchers investigated whether any connection between
preferred time headway, accident involvement, and driver
characteristics existed, but the results are not consistent.
Evans and Wasielewski (1982), e.g. claimed that drivers who
keep longer time headways tend to have a history of fewer
accidents and violations. On the other hand, the same authors
stated 1 year later (Evans and Wasielewski, 1983), that no
reliable relation between preferred time headway and acci-
(1) dent involvement could be detected. Van Winsum and Heino
(1996) investigated in a simulator study whether a closer
following distance was connected to more expertise in ac-
curately estimating TTC, but the relationship they found
was not significant. Michael et al. (2000) found that a sub-
stantial percentage of drivers in several urban locations did
not observe the 2 s rule, but compliance increased moder-
ately when hand-held signs urged drivers to heed the rule.

0001-4575/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 1 - 4 5 7 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - 2
428 K. Vogel / Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433

However, no direct relation to the occurrence of traffic con- with Ẋi−1 denoting the speed of the lead vehicle, Ẋi the
flicts was provided. speed of the following vehicle and li−1 the length of the lead
vehicle.
1.2. Time to collision To obtain TTC, the speed of both the involved vehicles
has to be known in addition to the time gap. An interesting
TTC is computed according to Eq. (2). difference between the two measures exists with respect to
traffic safety. It could be formulated such that time headway
Xi−1 (t) − Xi (t) − li
TTCi = ∀ Ẋi (t) > Ẋi−1 (t) (2) is “a step further away” from a crash than TTC. This claim
Ẋi (t) − Ẋi−1 (t) is based on the reasoning described later.
Let us consider a vehicle in the “following mode”. Such
with Ẋi denoting the speed of vehicle i, Xi the position of
a vehicle can have a relatively small headway, but a large
vehicle i, li the length of vehicle i and i−1 the vehicle ahead
or even undefined TTC value. This situation occurs, when
of vehicle i.
Ẋi−1 is equal to or larger than Ẋi (cf. Eq. (3)). The situation
The TTC is the time that is left until a collision occurs if
becomes critical only when something in the constellation
both vehicles continue on the same course and at the same
changes, like when the lead vehicle brakes such that Ẋi−1
speed. Therefore it is the time that is needed to cover the
becomes smaller than Ẋi . Thus, under stable circumstances,
distance between the lead and the following vehicle with
a small time headway can be maintained over extended pe-
the relative speed between the lead and the following ve-
riods of time without resulting in an immediately danger-
hicle. Hayward (1972) first introduced this concept, and it
ous situation. If, on the other hand, the TTC value of the
is discussed extensively in Hydén (1987), for example. For
following vehicle is small, something has to change in the
calculation of TTC to be possible, the vehicles in ques-
constellation if a crash is to be avoided. In a car-following
tion have to be on collision course, but not necessarily in
situation, the average relative speed between following and
a car-following situation. TTC in car-following situations
lead vehicle cannot be larger than 0 if a collision is to be
is only defined when the speed of the following vehicle is
avoided in the long run.
higher than the speed of the lead vehicle. In research TTC
To summarize, vehicles with small time headways can
has often been used as a safety indicator for certain ma-
(and frequently do) have large or undefined TTC values,
neuvers by determining the minimum TTC measured dur-
while small TTC values (in car following) are impossible
ing the maneuver (e.g. van Winsum and Heino, 1996; Hirst
for vehicles with long time headways. In a car-following
and Graham, 1997; Janssen and Nilsson, 1991). According
situation, TTC can, in fact, never be smaller than H , because
to Svensson (1998), TTC is an indicator for a traffic con-
the term Ẋi /(Ẋi − Ẋi−1 ) (cf. Eq. (3)) can never be smaller
flict and is, thus, inversely related to accident risk (smaller
than 1. This is due to the fact that Ẋi−1 is never negative,
TTC values indicate higher accident risks and vice versa).
which would mean that the lead vehicle was reversing. In
In a recent article, Minderhoud and Bovy (2001) suggest a
the special case of a stopped lead vehicle (Ẋi−1 = 0), the
method, which allows using TTC to compare the safety of
actual time gap (H ) equals TTC.
different drivers, road environments, or situations in gen-
As mentioned earlier, in a car-following situation TTC
eral. The basic idea is to sample TTC values over time, and
can never be smaller than the time gap between the lead and
to examine how often a certain driver undershoots a given
the following vehicle (H ). Thus, if the two values are to be
lower safety limit, or how often this limit is breached on a
compared, it seems reasonable to exclude those cases that
particular road stretch or under particular conditions. In the
are not safety critical with respect to any of the two measures
literature different opinions can be found as to which value
(Table 1). In order to determine the threshold between safety
should be used as safety limit—suggestions range from 1.5 s
critical “small” and safe “long” headways, the existing liter-
in urban areas (Svensson, 1998) to 5 s (Maretzke and Jacob,
ature on the concept of “free” and “following vehicles” was
1992). Minderhouds and Bovy’s (2001) method will be ap-
consulted. A “free” vehicle is by definition not in interaction
plied on empirical data in this study, and different threshold
with any vehicle ahead of it. For this reason, the analyses
values will be compared.
in the present study were limited to following vehicles. The
definition for a free vehicle that was adopted here is based
1.3. Relation and comparison on an empirical analysis by Vogel (2002), which shows that

A comparison of the two equations shows that more vari- Table 1

ables have to be known to determine TTC than to determine Relationship between TTC, headway and safety
H. The relationship between these two measures is presented Headway
in Eq. (3).
Small Large
Ẋi li−1
H , H = H −
TTC
TTC = where = gap
Ẋi − Ẋi−1 Ẋi Small Danger imminent Impossible
Large Potential danger Safe
(3)
 K. Vogel / Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433
vehicles with a time headway of more than 6 s choose their
traveling speed independent of the vehicle ahead. The choice
of this threshold value is supported by the fact that no author
considers a TTC that is larger than 6 s to be dangerous. This
means that even a stopped lead vehicle will not force the
follower to perform dangerous avoidance maneuvers if the
headway is larger than 6 s (and the following driver can see
the vehicle ahead). Only for speeds higher than 130 km/h a
larger time headway is needed to stop a vehicle safely be-
hind a stopped vehicle.
An additional reason for limiting the analysis to follow-
ing vehicles only is the possibility to compare different sit-
uations with each other. It allows, e.g. comparing the safety
level for situations with different traffic densities, either
across locations, or in the same location at different times.
If it were of interest whether the safety level is influenced
by time of day (daytime versus night-time), a simple com-
parison of the percentage of small TTCs across all vehi-
cles would mostly reflect the lower traffic volume during
night-time. This might lead to the assumption that safety in-
creases during the night. If, on the other hand, only those
vehicles are considered that actually are in a car-following
situation, a relative increase of small TTC values might be
found during the night, which could for instance be ex-
plained with driver fatigue and extended reaction times.
The last reason for restricting the analysis to following
vehicles is of methodological nature. A consequence of the
measurement technique used in this study is that TTC val-
ues become less reliable the longer the time headway for
the vehicle in question. This is explained in more detail in
Section 3. By excluding vehicles with a long headway from
Fig. 1. Schematic overview of the junction with indication of the location of the measurement sites.
429
the analysis, those unreliable TTC values are excluded as
well.
2. Method
The location of the study was a four-way junction in a
mid-sized town in Sweden. The junction is one of the most
accident-prone locations in town. Stop signs were placed
on the subordinate road and right-of-way signs were placed
on the main road. The posted speed limit was 50 km/h on
all arms of the junction. All arms had one lane in each
direction, except for one arm on the main road, which had a
separate lane for left-turning vehicles (Fig. 1). The junction
was located in the outskirts of the town, the two streets
forming it were major roads leading to residential areas. The
continuation of the main road after measurement site Main1
(indicated in Fig. 1) led out of town, the continuation after
measurement site Main5 led to the city center. Lampposts
were installed at the junction on all four arms.
For 6 days in spring 2000, traffic flow point measure-
ments were taken 24 h a day at seven locations around the
junction. The weather during the measurement week was
either sunny or cloudy, but there was no precipitation. The
measurement devices (described in detail in Anund, 1992)
record the speed of each passing vehicle, its direction, the
time interval between two passing vehicles, and the axle dis-
tance of each vehicle, from which the vehicle type can be
deduced to a certain extent (Sörensen, 1996).
The locations of the measurement devices are indicated
in Fig. 1. The measuring sites Main1 and Main4, as well as
430 K. Vogel / Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433
Sub1 and Sub2 were located at 115 m distance from the cen-
ter of the junction, the sites Main2 and Main3 were located
at 17.5 m distance from the center of the junction. Main5
was located on the main road, approximately 600 m away
from Main4. There was no junction in the vicinity, except
for one small and not very frequently used by-road lead-
ing to a block of houses, at a distance of about 20 m from
Sub2. On site Main3 (direction out of town), left-turning
vehicles could be registered separately due to the divided
lane.
Measurement sites were defined to be “corresponding”,
when they were installed on equivalent locations with re-
spect to the junction. In this sense, the locations Sub1 (direc-
tion towards junction) and Sub2 (direction towards junction)
are corresponding, as well as the locations Main2 (direction
away from junction) and Main3 (direction away from junc-
tion).
3. Results
Between 20,000 and 40,000 vehicles were registered at
each location, depending on traffic volume. For each vehi-
cle the driving speed, driving direction and the passing time
were recorded. Each driving direction was analyzed sepa-
rately for each site. Only vehicles with time headways of at
most 6 s were considered in the analysis. Time headway and
TTC were calculated as follows.
Time headway was calculated precisely as in Eq. (1). It
has to be noted that “time headway” usually is defined as the
elapsed time between the front of the lead vehicle’s and the
front of the following vehicle’s reaching the same location.
In the present study, the vehicles were recorded as soon as
the front axle passed the measurement site. Thus, the elapsed
time between the two front axles’ reaching the same location
is taken as approximation of time headway.
For the calculation of TTC another approximation had
to be made. According to Eq. (2), the numerator should be
equal to the distance headway minus the length of the lead
vehicle, which is the distance gap between the two vehicles.
As distance headway was not directly available from the data
in this study, it was derived from time headway and traveling
speed of the following vehicle, based on the assumption
that the vehicles traveled at a constant speed during the
measurement period. Vehicle length was approximated by
adding 1.80 m to the axle distance of the lead vehicle. 1.80 m
is equal to the average difference between vehicle length
and axle distance for passenger cars. It was felt that this
approximation was acceptable, because 95% of all recorded
vehicles were passenger cars. However, no vehicle types
were excluded from the analysis.
The denominator should be the relative speed between the
two vehicles at measurement time ti . It was approximated
by the difference between the speed of the following vehicle
at measurement time ti and the speed of the lead vehicle
at measurement time ti−1 , with ti being the time when the
following vehicle was recorded at the measurement site, and
ti−1 being the time when the lead vehicle was recorded at
the measurement site.
3.1. Traffic density
Neither the subordinate nor the main road operated at ca-
pacity level any time. For both roads the number of vehi-
cles per hour was very similar across weekdays, the pattern
looked different for Saturday and Sunday, though, as there
were no rush hour peaks. The increase in traffic volume dur-
ing the morning and the afternoon rush hours on weekdays
was more pronounced on the main road.
The percentage of following vehicles lay on average
slightly above 30% on the main road and somewhat below
30% on the subordinate roads. The percentage of following
vehicles increased with increasing traffic volume, but at any
time of day there were at least 50% free vehicles on both
roads.
3.2. Relationship between time to collision and headway
For each site and each direction correlations between time
headway and TTC were calculated for cases with valid TTC
values (speed of following vehicle larger than speed of lead
vehicle). At each site, the correlation was substantial if all
vehicles were considered (average correlation r = 0.423;
S.D. = 0.169), but close to 0 when only following vehicles
were considered (average correlation r = 0.077; S.D. =
0.047). If only following vehicles are considered, TTC and
H can be regarded as practically independent of each other
and can be investigated separately.
3.3. Headway
For each measurement site and each direction, the per-
centage of measured time headways that were below 1, re-
spectively 2 s, given all following vehicles, was calculated.
The results are presented in Fig. 2. The length of the black
field shows the percentage of time headways below 1 s, and
the length of the gray field shows the percentage of time
headways between 1 and 2 s. The sum of the lengths of both
shows the percentage of time headways below 2 s (“percent-
age scale” in lower left-hand corner), always given all fol-
lowing vehicles at the site in question.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, the percentage of vehicles that
drive with a time headway below 2 s is relatively evenly dis-
tributed on the main road (30.3% on average, S.D. = 5.99).
The percentage of following vehicles traveling with a time
headway below 1 s is on average 1.5% with a S.D. of 0.95.
There are no big differences between the direction towards
the junction and the direction away from the junction. On
the subordinate road, on the other hand, more vehicles drive
with a time headway below 2 s when they are on their way
towards the junction. In general, the percentage of small
headways is relatively similar on the corresponding sites. A
 K. Vogel / Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433 431

Fig. 2. Percentage of vehicles with time headways smaller than 2 and 1 s, respectively, given all following vehicles, for each measurement site and each
direction. The “percentage scale” is indicated in the lower left-hand corner.

comparison of the sites close to the junction (both directions
on Main2 and Main3) with the sites further away from the
junction (both directions on all other sites) does not show
any noteworthy differences with respect to percentage of
small time headway values.
3.4. Time to collision
TTC values are presented in a similar fashion in Fig. 3.
The length of the black rectangle indicates the percentage
of vehicles that had a TTC value of less than 1 s at this

Fig. 3. Percentage of vehicles with TTC values smaller than 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 s, given all following vehicles, for each measurement site and each direction.
The “percentage scale” is indicated in the lower left-hand corner.
432 K. Vogel / Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433
measurement site, based on all following vehicles. The
length of the dark gray field indicates the percentage of
vehicles with TTC values between 1 and 2 s, and so on.
Large differences with respect to the percentage of small
TTC values can be found between the different measurement
sites. Generally, the sites closer to the junction have a higher
percentage of small TTC values, especially values below 1 s
occur almost only close to the junction.
Visual inspection shows that most corresponding mea-
surement sites have relatively similar percentages of small
TTC values. The corresponding measurement sites Main3
(towards the junction, split into two lanes) and Main2 (to-
wards the junction) are an exception. Main2 has a much
larger percentage of small TTC values than Main3. More-
over, the percentage of small TTC values on Main2 is con-
siderably larger than at any other site.
3.5. Comment on the use of inferential statistics
Due to the following reasons, no inferential tests were
performed to examine whether any of the observed differ-
ences were statistically significant or not: (a) the number of
measurement sites was small (15), (b) the percentage values
for the different time boundaries (<1, 2 s, etc.) were not nor-
mally distributed and (c) variances were not homogeneous
for any of the corresponding groups.
4. Discussion
At first the drawbacks of the approach will be discussed,
to enable the reader to judge the interpretation of the re-
sults. The fact that the actual vehicle length was unknown,
but derived from axle length, is considered to be a minor
problem, because this approximation of the vehicle length
is deemed to be sufficient. Slightly more problematic is the
fact that the speed of the vehicles was not measured at the
same time, but in the same place, one after the other. Thus,
at the time when the speed of the following vehicle is mea-
sured, the speed of the lead vehicle can have changed. As
mentioned earlier, the problem was addressed by restricting
the analysis to vehicles with a headway of less than 6 s, but
even in this time interval speed changes are not unlikely in
urban areas.
4.1. Relationship between time to collision and headway
For all vehicles the correlation between H and TTC was
significant. This is not surprising, because TTC can never
be smaller than H, as explained earlier. As a result, across
the wide range of measured headways, vehicles with larger
headways tend to have larger TTC values. If the headway
range is restricted to 0–6 s, however, the correlation disap-
pears. This implies that headway and TTC are independent
of each other for following vehicles and therefore they yield
information that is not redundant. Due to this fact, they are
discussed independently of each other in the following para-
graphs.
4.2. Headway
At all sites on the main street the percentage of follow-
ing vehicles that drove with a headway of under 2 s was
relatively similar at around 30%. This is an indication that
drivers tend to choose a rather constant headway across sit-
uations; they do not use longer headways in more complex
situations. Instead, they reduce their speed when approach-
ing the junction (Vogel, 2001).
On the subordinate road, more small headways were mea-
sured on the way towards the junction than away from it. This
can be explained by the fact that “approaching a junction”
is a very predictable situation. The stop signs or the already
waiting vehicles make clear that every driver has to reduce
speed, hence, drivers expect to see the brake lights on the
vehicle ahead upon closing in on the junction. They are not
surprised and, therefore, do not brake hastily to increase the
headway, instead they continue as usual and might even ac-
cept a temporarily smaller headway before they also brake
for the stop sign. When heading away from the junction, on
the other hand, most drivers have only just finished acceler-
ating and have not yet “settled” at their preferred headway.
4.3. Time to collision
Compared with headway, TTC values vary more across
different locations around the junction. Generally, on the
sites further away from the junction fewer small TTC val-
ues were found than on the sites closer to the junction. For
the former sites, dangerous TTC values occurred with a fre-
quency of around 0.1–0.3%. Less than 0.1% of the TTC
values lay below 2 s.
The sites close to the junction have a higher percentage of
small TTC values, the smallest values occur mostly for the
direction towards the junction. Especially on site Main2 the
percentage of small TTC values is high; on average about
every 20th of all the following vehicles has a TTC value
of under 5 s. Given that approximately 30% of all 2800 ve-
hicles that travel daily towards the junction are following,
about 42 occurrences of dangerous TTC values can be ex-
pected daily in the location Main2 towards the junction. It
is noticeable that the percentage of dangerously small TTC
values is much lower on the corresponding measurement site
Main3 towards the junction. All other corresponding sites
have very similar percentages of small TTC values. Inter-
estingly, only the corresponding sites Main2 and Main3 to-
wards the junction have a quite different road design—on
Main3 there is a separate lane for left-turning vehicles, and
it is thinkable that this is the reason for the much lower
percentage of dangerous TTC values on this site. It is eas-
ily imaginable that the separate lane for left-turning vehi-
cles has a large safety effect, because they usually have to
wait longer in the junction and have to yield to oncoming
 K. Vogel / Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 427–433
traffic. A left-turning lane releases both the pressure on the
left-turning vehicles that arises when a queue develops be-
hind them, and the potential anger of those who have to wait
behind a blocked left-turner. If the number of left-turners
is approximately equally high at site Main2 as on Main3,
adding a left-turning lane could lead to an increase in traf-
fic safety. It seems less likely that driving direction per se
has an effect (going into town vs. leaving town), because
no such effect can be observed on the other corresponding
sites. Additionally, the junction was located well away from
both the city center and the city limits.
5. Conclusion
It was found that headway and TTC are independent of
each other for following vehicles. Due to the fact that TTC
values cannot be smaller than headway values, a short head-
way can be interpreted as potential danger, because only
vehicles that travel with short headways have the possibil-
ity to produce small TTC values. A small TTC value, on
the other hand, represents actual danger, because an acci-
dent can only be avoided by changing the situation actively.
The two values are suitable for different purposes, because
they provide different information. It is recommended that
authorities use headway as criterion for tailgating, because
it is easy to measure, it is easily understandable and inter-
pretable, and most important of all, it is directed against
potential danger, which effectively prevents dangerous TTC
values from occurring at all.
TTC values, on the other hand, should be used if the ac-
tual safety of a situation has to be evaluated. A particular
road design or driver can be evaluated with respect to safety
by examining the actual percentage of dangerously small
TTC values within a given time frame. Similarly, it is pos-
sible to evaluate the safety of in-car systems like intelligent
transport systems (ITSs) by comparing the same driver with
and without the system. Traffic environments can be com-
pared with respect to safety, and the same environment can
be analyzed at different times of day. Possible re-design of
a road stretch or recommendations for ITS devices can be
based on empirical grounds. The method could prove to be
very useful within the field of traffic simulation, as long as
the traffic model is based on accurate distributions of speed
and headway.
433
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank VINNOVA, Sweden and the Swedish
National Road Administration for providing the financial
support that made this study possible. I also thank Albert
Kircher for helpful comments on the manuscript.
References
Anund, A., 1992. Beteendeeffekter av olika företrädesregleringar (notat
T 133). Linköping: VTI.
Evans, L., 1991. Traffic Safety and the Driver. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Evans, L., Wasielewski, P., 1982. Do accident-involved drivers exhibit
riskier everyday driving behavior? Acc. Anal. Prev. 14, 57–64.
Evans, L., Wasielewski, P., 1983. Risky driving related to driver and
vehicle characteristics. Acc. Anal. Prev. 15, 121–136.
Hayward, J.C., 1972. Near miss determination through use of a scale of
danger (traffic records 384). Highway Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Hirst, S., Graham, R., 1997. The format and presentation of collision
warnings. In: Noy, I.Y. (Ed.), Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent
Driver Interfaces. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Hydén, C., 1987. The Development of a Method for Traffic Safety
Evaluation: The Swedish Traffic Conflicts Technique, Doctoral
Dissertation. Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Janssen, W.H., Nilsson, L., 1991. An experimental evaluation of in-vehicle
collision avoidance systems. In: Proceedings of the Paper Presentation
at the 24th ISATA International Symposium on Automotive Technology
and Automation.
Maretzke, J., Jacob, U., 1992. Distance warning and control as a means
of increasing road safety and ease of operation. In: Proceedings of
the Paper Presentation at the FISITA’92: Safety, the Vehicle and the
Road. XXIV FISITA Congress, London.
Michael, P.G., Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., 2000. Headway on urban
streets: observational data and an intervention to decrease tailgating.
Transport. Res. Part F 3 (2), 55–64.
Minderhoud, M.M., Bovy, P.H.L., 2001. Extended time-to-collision
measures for road traffic safety assessment. Acc. Anal. Prev. 33, 89–97.
Svensson, Å., 1998. A method for analysing the traffic process in a safety
perspective, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden.
Sörensen, G., 1996. System för bestämning av fordonskoder (meddelande
762). Linköping: VTI.
van Winsum, W., Heino, A., 1996. Choice of time-headway in
car-following and the role of time-to-collision information in braking.
Ergonomics 39 (4), 579–592.
Vogel, K., 2001. Day- and night-time differences in speed in an urban
intersection. In: Proceedings of the Paper Presentation at the Vision in
Vehicles 9, Brisbane, Australia.
Vogel, K., 2002. What characterizes a free vehicle in an urban area?
Transport. Res. Part F 5 (1), 15–29.