Decision Support System for Traffic Calming Measures along

Urban and Non-urban Roads

Abstract: Road accidents have become a major public health concern and a leading cause of death,
hence there is a need for research that focuses on reducing accidents. Vehicle speed is one of the most
important factors for road safety as it influences the severity and probability of road accidents. By the
use of traffic calming measures such as speed humps, the speed of the vehicle is controlled to a certain
limit due to the discomfort offered by the traffic calming measures (rumble strips and speed hump). An
effort is made to study the influence of geometry of rumble strip or speed hump on speed and discomfort
of different types of vehicles on urban and non-urban roads. The study is carried out in two parts,
evaluating the effectiveness of rumble strip or speed hump with different geometry for different
categories of vehicles and a statistical relationship between speed of vehicles and geometryof traffic
calming measures are developed. In the second phase, discomfort experienced by road users while
passing over the speed calming measures is measured in the form of vertical acceleration. Results have
shown that with the increase in the height of the speed hump, vehicles’ speed decreases, discomfort
increases and with the increase in width of speed hump.

Keywords: Speed hump, road safety, decision support system, traffic calming measures, vertical discomfort

1.0 Introduction

Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged between
5-29 years. Approximately, 1.3 million (WHO, 2022) people die each year as a result of road
traffic crashes. Between 20 and 50 million more people suffer non-fatal injuries, with many
incurring a disability as a result of their injury. More than half of all roadtraffic deaths are
among vulnerable road users viz., pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. 93% of the world's
fatalities on the roads occur in low- and middle-income countries, even though these countries
have approximately 60% of the world's vehicles. Road traffic crashes cost most countries 3%
of their gross domestic product (WHO, 2022). Road accidents and fatalities are more in rural
areas compared to urban areas. Accident-related deaths in 2019 were 32.9% and 67.1% in urban
and rural areas respectively (MoRT&H, 2020).

Empirical evidence from road safety literature suggests that vehicular speed is a fundamental
risk factor in the incidence and severity of road traffic crashes in both developed and
developing countries (Nilson, 1981; Yuan-Chin Cheng et. al., 1994; Evanco, 1996; Afukaar,
2003; Elvick, Christen & Amundsen, 2004; Kallberg 2004; Peden et al., 2004; SWOV, 2004;
Berner & Crundal, 2005; Fleiter & Watson, 2006). Hence, there is a great need for proper
installation of traffic calming measures (TCM) along urban and non-urban roads to control
vehicular speeds. Traffic calming measures are categorized into four types namely central
island, horizontal deflected, vertical deflected, and road narrowing (IRC:99-2015).

A speed hump is the most commonly used vertically deflected traffic calming measure used
in India. Speed humps reduce the speeds by inducing uncomfortable bumping and vibrating
effect to the vehicles while passing over the humps. The level of discomfort and driving speeds
depend primarily on the hump geometry (Khorshid et al., 2007; Koti Marg and Puram 2018).
The vibration experienced inside the vehicle enhances with the increase in the height of the
speed hump (Kırbaş & Karaşahin, 2018).
In this study, an attempt is made to develop relationships between vehicular speeds and
geometry (width and height) of the speed humps, both for urban and rural roads. These
equations are developed for different categories of vehicles. Regression equations to establish
relationship between the discomfort experienced by the drivers (m/s2) and width andheight of
the speed hump for different categories of vehicles are developed, both for rural and urban
roads.

2.0 Literature review

Traffic calming measures are defined as the combination of physical measures that reduce the
adverse effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-
motorized road users (Lockwood 1997).
Many research works have been reported to highlight the effect of traffic calming measures
on the speed of vehicles and enhancing the road safety. Traffic calming measures (TCMs)
including speed humps, chicanes, and roundabouts are effective tools in ensuring the safety
of road segments with a higher level of pedestrian traffic viz., school zones and residential
areas (Joo et al., 2019; Vasudevan and Patel, 2017).

Speed humps are enhanced road traffic safety facilities on smooth roads. They set the
deceleration zone for moving vehicles including non-motor traffic. Speed humps have
advantages of simple construction, low cost of building and quick effect. Therefore, in recent
years it has made great recognition (Lockwood 1997, Zhang et al., 2015). Speed humps are
categorized based on geometry and shape viz., circular, parabolic and trapezoidal.
A speed hump causes considerable discomfort to the road users (Zhou et al., 2021). Drivers
suddenly slow down and accelerate just before and after the speed hump (Pau, 1994). When a
vehicle gets through the deceleration zone at a high speed, severe vibration from tire will be
passed to the driver through the body and seat, producing strong physiological stimulation
(including vibration stimulation and visual stimulation) and mental stimulation. Physiological
stimulation will produce a strong discomfort, (Zhang et al., 2015). It has been observed that,
while crossing over a speed hump, as the vehicle speed increases, the vertical discomfort
experienced by the road users increases. Studies showed that geometry of speed hump (width
and height) was the most important factor influencing the discomfort and hence the passing
speeds of the vehicles (Vasudevan and Patel, 2017). The studies on effectiveness of vertical
deflected type of traffic calming measures indicate around 60% reduction in vehicular speed
over rumble strips (Rokade et al. 2017).

Analysis on three types of traffic calming measures viz., flat topped, single and double humps
in Iraq indicated 71% reduction in vehicle speed over flat topped hump on arterial roads which
was higher than single and double humps (Abdulmawjoud et. al., 2021). Trapezoidal humps
indicated increase in undesirable discomfort over 60% speed humps (Jasiuniene et al. 2018).
43% to 52% reduction in vehicular speeds was observed while crossing over the hump. Humps
with 60mm height are more effective in controlling speed than that of 80mm speed hump.
(Dinasty et. al., 2018).
3.0 Objective
Although several works on study of effectiveness of traffic calming measures are reported,
studies to understand and analyze the effectiveness of traffic calming measures on vehicular
speeds under mixed traffic flow conditions need to be explored. In this study, an attempt is
made to develop relationship between traffic calming geometry and vehicular speeds for
different categories of vehicles. Regression equations to establish relationship between the
discomfort experienced by the drivers (m/s2) and width and height of the traffic calming
measures ( rumble strips and speed humps) for different categories of vehicles are developed,
both for rural and urban roads. This work presents a framework for reference to decide the
geometry of traffic calming measures for varying vehicular speed along rural and urban roads
The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of traffic calming measures and to
framework model for design of speed humps, for different vehicle categories.

4.0 Field studies and methodology

Studies are carried out along urban and non-urban roads in the southern part of Karnataka,
India. Fifty-five - traffic calming measures ( rumble strips and speed humps) along 164km
length of urban roads (arterial) in Bengaluru, Karnataka and fifty-seven traffic calming
measures along 238Km length of non-urban roads (national highways (NH) and state highways
(SH) in Ramanagara district, Karnataka are identified for studies. Selected stretches include
roads with four-lane divided and two-lane undivided carriageways. The traffic calming
measures along the selected stretches can be classified as trapezoidal, circular, parabolic,
double hump and rumble strips.
The field studies along urban and non-urban roads are divided into two stages. Firstly, the
vehicular speeds and vehicle volume are recorded with the help of radar gun and manual
counting respectively. Existing dimensions of the traffic calming measures and geometry of
the road are also recorded. Spot speeds of different categories of vehicles are measured at
distances of 10m, 20m, 30m, 100m, 150m and on the traffic calming measures (0m) from the
traffic calming measure on both sides without effecting driver behaviour and interrupting
traffic. Data is collected on weekdays during off peak period when the interaction between the
vehicles is less.

In the second stage, vertical discomfort in terms of acceleration (m/s2) while travelling over the
speed hump is measured using an “Androsensor” mobile application. Vertical discomfort over
the hump is recorded and the corresponding speeds are noted for different categories of vehicles.
The physical/ mental unevenness experienced by the road users while crossing over the speed
hump is referred to as discomfort in this context. For the purpose of quantification, it is measured
in terms of acceleration(m/s2) using readily available mobile app called “Androsensor”.

5.0 Data collection

The various data collected from each location of the speed hump are as follows:
i. Spot speeds of different categories of vehicles such as bikes, car, autorickshaw, bus,
HCV and LCV
ii. The geometry of traffic calming measures viz, height, width and length.
 iii. The geometry of road, traffic volume and vertical discomfort over the traffic calming
measures

5.1 Traffic volume

The traffic volume studies are carried out to know the heterogeneity of traffic and traffic
distribution along the carriageway. Different classes of vehicles viz., motor bikes, cars, jeeps,
trucks, light commercial vehicles (LCV), heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) and buses were
calculated along the road. The hourly traffic volume for urban and non – urban roads is as
shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1: Traffic volume on urban roads

stretch number hourly traffic, veh/hr PCU/ hr

Pattanagere to Nelamangala toll (Arterial 1) 1890 2007
Nelamagala to Doddaballapura (Arterial 2) 1745 1853
Doddaballapura to Hoskote (Arterial 3) 1486 1578
Hoskote to Kengeri (Arterial 4) 1031 1095

Table 2: Traffic data collected for selected road network (non-urban)

stretch number hourly traffic, veh/hr PCU/ hr

NH-75 2103 2234
NH-275 1768 1878
NH-948 1286 1366
SH-3 761 809
SH-33 1208 1283
SH-94 971 1032

5.2 Geometric features of traffic calming measures

Types of speed calming measures were mainly trapezoidal, parabolic, circular, double hump
and rumble strips. The height, width, length of traffic calming measures is as shown the Table
3 and Table 4.

Table 3: Geometric features of traffic calming measures of Urban roads

category of road width, m height, m length, m
max min max min max min
Arterial 1 6.5 1.6 0.12 0.038 11 7
Arterial 2 5.6 3.5 0.10 0.040 10 7
Arterial 3 4.8 2.5 0.12 0.045 12 7
Arterial 4 5.0 1.2 0.11 0.050 7 5

Table 4: Geometric features of traffic calming measures of non-urban roads

category of road width, m height, m length, m
max min max min max min
NH-75 6.75 1.75 0.15 0.060 12 7
NH-275 5.5 3 0.08 0.040 10 7
 NH-948 4.5 3.2 0.14 0.055 7.5 7
SH-3 2.4 1.0 0.11 0.065 6.5 5
SH-33 7.0 6.5 0.13 0.110 12 7
SH-94 4.5 2.5 0.16 0.097 9 7

5.3 Spot speed data collection

Spot speeds at various distances from the traffic calming measures for different categories of
vehicles are measured to obtain the speed profile. The spot speed measured at 150m, from the
speed hump, is assumed to be free-flow speed, as it is considerably away from influence of
the speed hump. The speeds of the vehicles are measured at different distance intervals on both
sides of the traffic calming measures as shown in Figure 1. For the measurement of speed, two
methods are adopted i.e., radar gun method and trap length method. Radar gun is adevice used
to measure the instantaneous speed of the vehicles travelling above 15kmph. In trap length
method speed of the vehicle is obtained by dividing the predetermined distance by the time
taken to cover that particular distance, it is adopted for the measurement of vehicles speed at
the speed hump when the speed is less than 15kmph.

Figure 1: Data collection points at speed calming measure

5.4 Discomfort measurement on speed calming measure

The discomfort survey is carried out using “Androsensor” application installed in mobile
phone. Mobile phone was attached to car, bike, bus and autorickshaw ( 3 wheeler ) with the
help of phone holder while crossing over the speed calming measure (hump / rumble strips).
Speeds corresponding to vertical discomfort as and when the vehicle travel over the speed
calming measure was also noted simultaneously using “speedometer” mobile application as
shown in Figure 2. The maximum and minimum discomfort measured for the speed calming
measures along urban and non urban roads are presented in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.
The Androsensor records acceleration in three orthogonal directions:
i. Vertical acceleration (Z-axis) – Vertical
ii. Horizontal acceleration (X-axis) – Lateral
iii. Horizontal acceleration (X-axis) – Longitudinal
 Figure 2: Typical display of Androsensor mobile application

Table 5 : Acceleration measurements over the speed calming measures on Urban

roads
Type of speed calming Discomfort recorded (m/s2)
measure
Bike Car Autorickshaw Bus

Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

Trapezoidal hump 3.18 1.95 3.12 2.35 3.78 2.75 4.21 2.47

Parabolic hump 3.65 2.84 3.40 2.57 4.81 2.62 3.45 2.85

Doble hump 4.05 2.80 3.51 2.36 4.89 2.67 4.20 3.12

Circular hump 4.12 2.25 3.98 2.68 5.33 3.87 5.12 3.72

Table 6: Acceleration measurements over the speed calming measures on Non-urban

roads
Type of speed calming Discomfort recorded (m/s2)
measure
Bike Car Autorickshaw Bus

Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

Trapezoidal hump 3.83 1.95 4.13 2.60 5.98 2.85 4.21 2.32

Parabolic hump 4.47 2.00 3.40 1.97 5.58 2.64 3.91 2.55

Circular hump 4.05 2.43 3.49 2.36 5.58 2.67 4.20 2.36

Rumble strips 5.99 4.82 3.98 2.68 6.33 4.07 5.12 4.12

6.0 Results and discussion

6.1 Multi linear regression analysis using python

a. Average speed for different categories of vehicles with geometry of speed calming
measure:
Multi-linear regression analysis is carried out to develop relationship between speeds
of vehicles with geometry of speed calming measures viz., height and width of the speed
calming measure. The relationship based on regression analysis for different vehicular
categories viz., motorbikes, cars, auto rickshaws, buses, HCV and LCV are shown in
equation (1) for urban roads and equation (2) for non-urban roads. It is found that the
height and width of the hump affects the speed of the category of vehicle. Highest
speeds for a given height and width of speed calming measure is obtained for cars
followed by two wheelers, auto rikshaws (3 wheelers) and bus, both along urban and
non – urban roads. For a given height and width of speed calming measure, the speeds
achieved for cars is higher by about 1.4, 12.5, and 13 % as compared to two wheelers,
auto-rikshaws and buses respectively for urban roads. Thespeeds for cars were found
to be higher by 14.5, 31.7 and 14.5 % as compared to two wheelers, auto and buses
respectively for non - urban roads.

i. VUrban = 82.39 – 65.75 * exp (H) + 0.17 * log (W) + C… .................... equation (1)
C for bike = 21.76, C for car = 22.05, C for auto-rikshaw = 19.37, C for bus = 19.29

ii. VNon-urban = 57.75 - 32.90 * exp (H) + 0.91* log (W) + C ..................... equation (2)
C for bike = 14.37, C for car = 16.80, C for auto = 10.75, C for bus = 14.37
where,
V = Average speed of vehicles (kmph)
H = Height of speed calming measure (m)

W = Width of speed calming measure (m)

C = Constant value for different categories of vehicles

b. Discomfort experienced by road users with geometry of speed calmimg measure:

Discomfort models are also developed, to understand relationship between geometry of

the speed calming measure with vertical discomfort. The regression equations for
motorbikes, cars, auto rickshaws and buses are as shown in equation 3 to equation 6 for
urban roads and in equation 7 to equation 10 for non-urban roads respectively.
Equations developed indicate that the height of the speed calming measure is the most
influencing factor for discomfort. Highest discomfort was noted for auto rickshaw both
along urban and non – urban roads on the speed calming measure.
i. DBike = 5.872-0.091(W)+2.051 log (H) ............................................ equation (3)
ii. DCar = 5.79+0.089 (W)+2.149 log (H) ............................................. equation (4)
iii. DAuto rickshaw = 6.688-0.0423(W)+3.134 log (H)................................ equation (5)
iv. DBus = 6.301-0.041(W)+2.464 log (H) ............................................. equation (6)
 v. DBike = 3.068407-0.08645(W)+25.21446(H2)… ............................. equation (7)
vi. DCar = 2.150+0.0166(W)+60.67(H2) ................................................ equation (8)
vii. DAuto rickshaw = 2.88109-0.02532(W)+60.47617(H2) ......................... equation (9)
viii. DBus = 3.789622-0.19469(W)+23.84972(H2) .................................... equation (10)
where,
D= Vertical discomfort (m/s2)
H = Height of speed hump (m)
W = Width of speed hump (m)
6.2 Relationship between percentage speed reduction and width to height (W/H) ratio of
speed calming measure
Studies carried out for different speed calming measures along selected stretches of urban and non-urban
roads between percentage speed reduction and width to height (W/H) ratio. It was observed that (W/H) ratio
decreases as the percentage speed reduction increases. An exponentially decreasing curve trend was found
for all categories of vehicles as shown in Figure. 3 for urban roads and in Figure. 4 for non-urban roads.
Percentage speed reduction was calculated from a distance of 150m (before the speed calming measure) to
0 m (at the speed calming measure), for different categories of vehicles. It is observed that even though if
the shape of hump are different but there are having same behaviour ie. If the height of hump increases
speed reduces and discomfort increses and if width increses speed increses and discomfort reduces. Studies
indicated similar behaviour for different shape of speed calming measure i.e. as the height of hump
increases discomfort increases and speed reduces and as the width of speed calming measures
increases and the discomfort reduces speed increases and discomfort reduces speed increases, here
an attempt is made to co-relate thus the reduction of speed (%) with W/H ratio as shown in Fig.3
and Fig.4

Figure. 3: Relation between percentage speed reduction and (W/H) of speed calming
measure on urban road
 Figure. 3: Relation between percentage speed reduction and (W/H) of speed calming
measure on urban road

6.3 Influence of width and height of speed calming measures on speed of vehicles and
discomfort of road users.
The relationships between variation of speed and discomfort with respect to height and width
of the speed calming measures are developed for different categories of vehicles viz., bike, car,
autoriksha and buses.

i. Height of speed calming measure with respect to speed and discomfort

Studies are conducted on the speed calming measures chosen along the selected urban and
non-urban roads. The zone of speed calming measures is chosen between 150 m before
and 150 m after speed calming measures. This was chosen to know the effectiveness of
speed calming measures as compared to free flow conditions of roads for vehicular
movement. Figure. 5 and Figure. 6 presents the variation of speeds and discomfort with
the height of the speed calming measure along urban and non-urban roads respectively. It
was found that the average speed reduced with the increase in height and the variation
follows a parabolic curve trend.
 45.0 5.0

4.5
40.0

Average Speed (kmph)

4.0

Discomfort (m/s2)
35.0

3.5

30.0
3.0

25.0
2.5

20.0 2.0
3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0
Height (cm)

Poly. (Bike avg speed vs height) Poly. (car avg speed vs Height)
Poly. (Auto avg speed vs Height) Poly. (Bus avg speed vs height)
Poly. (Bike discomfort vs Height) Poly. (Car discomfort vs Height)
Poly. (Auto discomfort vs Height) Poly. (Bus discmfort vs Height)

Figure 5: Relation between average speed and discomfort with height of

the speed calming measure on urban roads

50.0 4.5

45.0 4.0

Discomfort (m/s2)
Average speed (Kmph)

40.0 3.5

35.0 3.0

30.0 2.5

25.0 2.0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Height (cm)
Poly. (Bike avg speed vs height ) Poly. (Car avg speed vs height)

Poly. (Bus avg speed vs height) Poly. (Auto avg speed vs height)

Poly. (bike discomfort vs height) Poly. (car discomfort vs height)

Poly. (Bus discomfort vs height) Poly. (Auto discomfort vs height)

Figure 6: Relation between average speed and discomfort with height of the
speed calming measure on Non- urban roads
ii. Width of speed hump with respect to speed and discomfort
iii. Width of speed calming measure with respect to speed and discomfort
Figure. 7 and Figure. 8 presents the variation of speeds and discomfort with the width of the
speed calming measure along urban and non-urban roads respectively. It is observed that the
average speed increased with the increase in width and the variation follows a parabolic curve
trend.

41.0 5.0

39.0
4.5

37.0
Average speed (Kmph)

4.0

Discomfort (m/s2)
35.0
3.5
33.0

3.0
31.0

2.5
29.0

27.0 2.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Width (m)
Poly. (Bike avg speed vs Height) Poly. (Car avg speed vs Height)
Poly. (Auto avg speed vs Height) Poly. (Bus avg speed vs Height)
Poly. (Bike discomfort vs Height) Poly. (Car discomfort speed vs Height)
Poly. (Auto discomfort vs Height) Poly. (Bus discomfort vs Height)

Figure. 7: Relation between width of speed calming measure and average speed and discomfort

47.0 5.5

45.0
5.0
43.0
Average speed (Kmph)

4.5
41.0
Discomfort (m/s2)

39.0 4.0

37.0 3.5
35.0
3.0
33.0
2.5
31.0

29.0 2.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Poly. (Bike avg speed vs Width) Width (m) Poly. (Car avg speed vs Width)

Poly. (Auto avg speed vs Width) Poly. (Bus avg speed vs Width)

Poly. (Bike discomfort vs Width) Poly. (Car discomfort speed vs Width)

Poly. (Auto discomfort vs Width) Poly. (Bus discomfort vs width)

Figure. 8: Relation between width of speed hump and average speed and
discomfort on non-urban roads

6.4 Validation of developed models

a. Average speed for different categories of vehicles with geometry of speed calming
measure:
 The vehicular speeds were measured using radar speed gun along selected urban and non –
urban roads. The speeds are also calculated based on the developed equation 1. It was found
that the calculated values matched the observed values closely and the same is presented in
Figure. 9 and Figure. 10 for urban roads and non – urban roads respectively. The observed
values were chosen from SH – 03 (non – urban road) and along Doddaballapur – Hoskote road
(urban) stretches which were not a part of development of multi – linear model.

Figure. 9. Comparison between the speed values observed and calculated along urban roads

Figure. 10. Comparison between the speed values observed and calculated along non - urbanroads
7. CONCLUSIONS
The speed data and discomfort experienced by the road users are measured for different
categories of vehicles with respect width and height of speed calming measures. The
conclusions are summarized as follows:
 i. Five types of speed calming measures viz., trapezoidal humps, circular humps,
parabolic humps and rumble strips are analysed for their effect on different
vehicle class for heterogenous traffic along selected urban and non- urban roads.
ii. The good correlation (greater than 0.8) was found between the average speed of
all vehicles and geometric characteristics viz., height and width of speed
calming measures.
iii. The good correlation (greater than 0.84) was found between the discomfort felt
by passengers and geometric characteristics viz., height and width of speed
calming measures.
iv. The discomfort felt by the road users while travelling over the speed calming
measure increases with increase in height of speed calming measure and
decreases with increase in width of speed calming measure.
v. The percentage of reduction in the speed of the vehicles is inversely
proportional to width of speed calming measure, if the width of the speed
calming measure increases average speed of the vehicles increases
vi. Trapezoidal humps were most effective in urban and Circular humps were more
effective in non-urban roads because both speed humps were more effective in
reducing 85th percentile speed of vehicles.
vii. For the studied stretch roads, efficiency of trapezoidal humps, Parabolic hump,
Double hump, circular hump was found to be 72.1%, 67.5%, 59.5%, 61.6%
along urban sections and 83.05%, 82.69%, 83.33% along non-urban stretch.

REFERENCES
[1]. Road accidents in India, (2019). Report on road accidents India. Ministry of Transport
Department of Surface Transport (Roads Wing).
[2]. Emad Khorshid and Mohammed Alfares. (2010). “A numerical study on the optimal
geometric design of speed control humps”. Engineering Optimization, Taylor & Francis
Ltd., Vol. 36, No. 1, pp 77–100.
[3]. Ufuk Kırbaş, Mustafa Karaşahin. "Comparison of Speed Control Bumps and Humps
according to Whole-Body Vibration Exposure", Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Part A: Systems, 2018
[4]. Vasudevan, Vinod and Patel, Tanuj, (2017). “Comparison of discomfort caused by
speed humps on bicyclists and riders of motorized two-wheelers”, Sustainable Cities and
Society, vol. 35, pp. 669-676
[5]. Abdulmawjoud, Ayman A.Jamel, Mohammed G. Al-Taei, Abdulkhalik A, (2020).
Traffic flow parameters development modelling at traffic calming measures located on
arterial roads, Elsevier.
[6]. K. Koti Marg and R. Puram. (2018). “Guidelines for Traffic calming measures in urban
and rural areas indian roads congress,” First Revision, 2018
[7]. R. A. A. Dinasty Purnomo, D. Handayani, and Syafi’I, “Correlation analysis between
speed bump dimensions and motorcycle speed in residential areas,” in MATEC Web of
Conferences, Aug. 2018, vol. 195. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201819504013
[8]. Y. Zhang, Z. Hu, and A. Chen, “Urban Road Speed Humps Setting Technology,” ICTE
2015 - Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Transp. Eng., pp. 1092–1101, 2015, doi:
10.1061/9780784479384.137.