The traffic conflicts method was developed as a tool for estimating accident potential at intersections and for indicating methods of reducing hazardous conditions. A review of evaluation studies fails to confirm that the method can perform these tasks. This results partly from methodological problems in the studies. Differences in the definitions of both accidents and conflicts have produced results which often are incomparable simply because different pairs of variables have been used in the analysis. Other theoretical inconsistencies appear to limit the likelihood of predicting accidents from conflicts. It is suggested that a hierarchy of traffic events ranging in severity from slight conflicts to fatal accidents exists. Certain fundamental characteristics of these events (including time of occurrence, type of manoeuvre, location and probable cause) differ so markedly that, the prediction of one from the other may not be possible. Evidence is presented which indicates that neither accident nor conflict data, recorded using present methods, is of much value in predicting future accidents or conflicts, respectively. It is suggested that a new method of recording conflicts which overcomes the conceptual problems of previous definitions may be useful in evaluating countermeasures. (TRRL)

  • Corporate Authors:


    Melbourne, Victoria  Australia 
  • Authors:
    • Williams, M J
  • Publication Date: 1980-2

Media Info

  • Features: Figures; References; Tables;
  • Pagination: 28 p.

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00315200
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: ARRB
  • Report/Paper Numbers: AIR 239-1 Monograph
  • Files: ITRD, TRIS, ATRI
  • Created Date: Oct 27 1980 12:00AM