International Journal of Injury Control and Safety

Promotion

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nics20

Evaluating overtaking and filtering maneuver

of motorcyclists and car drivers using advanced
trajectory data analysis

Harish Kumar Saini, Shivam Singh Chouhan, Ankit Kathuria & Ashoke Kumar
Sarkar

To cite this article: Harish Kumar Saini, Shivam Singh Chouhan, Ankit Kathuria & Ashoke
Kumar Sarkar (2023): Evaluating overtaking and filtering maneuver of motorcyclists and car
drivers using advanced trajectory data analysis, International Journal of Injury Control and
Safety Promotion, DOI: 10.1080/17457300.2023.2225162

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2023.2225162

Published online: 21 Jun 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nics20
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2023.2225162

Research Article

Evaluating overtaking and filtering maneuver of motorcyclists and car drivers

using advanced trajectory data analysis
Harish Kumar Saini, Shivam Singh Chouhan, Ankit Kathuria and Ashoke Kumar Sarkar
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present paper compares motorized two-wheeler (MTW) and passenger car’s interactions with the Received 27 December
rest of the traffic in urban roads while performing overtaking and filtering maneuvers. To better 2022
understand filtering maneuvers of motorcyclists and car drivers, an attempt was made to propose a Revised 18 May 2023
Accepted 11 June 2023
new measure, i.e. pore size ratio. Additionally, the factors affecting lateral width acceptance for
motorcyclists and car drivers while overtaking and filtering were studied using advanced trajectory data. KEYWORDS
A regression model was developed to predict the significant factors affecting motorcyclist’s and car Filtering; overtaking;
driver’s decisions to accept lateral width with the adjacent vehicle while performing overtaking and motorized two-wheeler;
filtering maneuvers. Finally, a comparative analysis between machine learning and the probit model pore size ratio; lateral width
revealed that, in the present case, machine learning models perform better than the probit model in
terms of the model’s discernment power. The findings of this study will help ameliorate the power of
existing microsimulation tools.

Introduction behavior has a striking effect on the traffic characteristics,

Motorized Two-Wheelers (MTWs) and passenger cars are
popular modes of transportation in developing countries
because of the high acceleration characteristics and door-to-
door facility offered by these modes. In the past decade, a
significant increase in cars and two-wheelers traffic has been
observed in developing countries (WHO, 2018). The
increased traffic results in higher chances of these modes
being involved in a crash. MTW comprise 35.2% of the
total traffic in India and are the most frequently injured
road users, followed by cars which comprise 24.3% of the
total traffic (MoRTH, 2021). However, the number of road
accidents is progressively decreasing every year. But the
number of MTW accidents is not declining as fast as that
of car accidents. The reason for this discrepancy is the lower
stability, lack of protection, and risky driving maneuvers of
MTW riders when compared to car drivers (Lin & Kraus,
2009; Theofilatos & Yannis, 2015; Vlahogianni et al., 2013).
Habitually, MTW drivers tend to show risky behaviors on
the road, such as speeding, violating traffic rules, taking ille-
gal turns, disobedience to overtaking restrictions, keeping
short headway with the leading vehicle, and so forth
(Broughton et al., 2009; Mannering & Grodsky, 1995;
Vlahogianni et al., 2012). During light congestion, MTW
riders try to position themselves in front of the queues (at
intersections), change the lane position, or continue to speed
even after facing the downstream bottleneck by overtaking
or filtering through the traffic. The risky motorcyclist’s
such as speed reduction of overall traffic and enhanced risk
for accident occurrence (Vlahogianni, 2014).
An increase in the accident risk while performing differ-
ent maneuvers has developed high interest among traffic
modelers in understanding different riding patterns adopted
by MTW in the mixed traffic stream. This includes filtering,
following, tailgating, swerving, and vehicle grouping
(Munigety & Mathew, 2016). In dense mixed traffic streams,
where vehicles perform complex maneuvers by utilizing the
available lateral spaces between other vehicles on the road,
the behavior is referred to as filtering (Das & Maurya, 2019;
Vlahogianni, 2014) or seeping (Agarwal & Lämmel, 2016;
George Oketch, 2000) or lane splitting (Agarwal & Lämmel,
2016; Rice et al., 2015). There are several benefits associated
with filtering, such as travel time saving, reduction in con-
gestion, increased speed and capacity, etc. (Das & Maurya,
2020). A small lateral gap or space between vehicles moving
parallelly in a congested traffic flow that can be utilized by
the following vehicle to filter through other vehicles safely
and efficiently is referred to as a pore in the context of traf-
fic. The concept of a pore is often used in traffic to describe
the movement of vehicles through traffic and how traffic
congestion can occur when pores are not utilized efficiently.
Efficient utilization of adequate pore size by drivers can
improve traffic flow and reduce the likelihood of accidents or
collisions (Beanland et al., 2015; Huth et al., 2014). Pore size
plays a vital role in filtering, and it is the available lateral/
oblique distance between two leading vehicles. However, the

CONTACT Ankit Kathuria ankit.kathuria@iitjammu.ac.in Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir
181221, India
© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. K. SAINI ET AL.
Figure 1. Concept of pore size ratio.
pore sizes accepted by motorcyclists and car drivers are dif-
ferent due to the difference in the subject vehicular dimen-
sions. In view of the above, a new term is proposed in the
present study, i.e. “pore size ratio (PSR),” which is defined as
the ratio of pore size to the width of the subject vehicle type.
Figure 1 presents the concept behind the pore size ratio.
PS
PSR = (1)
Subject Vehicle Width
Where ‘PS’ is the pore size accepted or rejected by the
subject vehicle while filtering. Figure 1 presents the variables
used in determining PSR.
Additionally, overtaking maneuver is performed when a
vehicle approaching from behind passes a lead vehicle travel-
ing in the same lane and same direction and returns to a sim-
ilar lane (in the case of a multi-lane highway). If a vehicle fails
to overtake the lead vehicle, it will start to tailgate the lead
vehicle. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways reported
statistics that overtaking was a cause of 29,647 road accidents
in India in 2016, leading to 9,462 road fatalities (MoRTH,
2021). Clabaux et al. (2014) observed that in more than half
of the crashes in Marseille, France comprising MTW and
pedestrian, MTW was filtering at the time of the crash. In
another study, Clabaux et al. (2017) observed that the risk of
motorcyclists involved in crashes at the time of filtering was
3.94 times greater compared to the ones who do not filter.
Also, literature shows that one of the primary causes of high
MTW accidents is the riding behavior of motorcyclists.
Considering the high percentage of MTW and cars in the traf-
fic stream (MoRTH, 2021), it becomes extremely important to
understand the factors that affect the driving behavior of
MTW and car drivers under heterogeneous traffic conditions.
Therefore, the present paper attempts to compare driving/rid-
ing patterns based on overtaking and filtering maneuvers to
understand the risky behavior of motorcyclists and car drivers.
Literature review
In recent years, researchers have studied the driving behav-
ior pattern under mixed traffic conditions (Barmpounakis
et al., 2016b; Das & Maurya, 2019; Hublart & Durand, 2012;
Soni et al., 2020). Nikias et al. (2012) highlighted that over-
taking and filtering are the two most frequently witnessed
driving patterns on urban roads with two lanes per travel
direction. An overview of different studies on the overtaking
and filtering maneuvers of cars and MTWs was discussed in
subsequent sections.
Literature related to overtaking maneuver
Literature has accentuated the need to study driving patterns
followed by the car and MTW in mixed traffic, specifically
for overtaking and filtering maneuvers. Troutbeck (1981)
studied motorcyclist’s behavior while overtaking cars and
trucks using regression analysis. The study found that riders
tend to overtake when they perceive a sufficient gap in
oncoming traffic and the road ahead is clearly visible. The
study also found that the speed differential between the
overtaking and overtaken vehicles, as well as the length of
the overtaking vehicle, affect the duration of overtaking
maneuvers. Sugandhi and Chunchu (2017) analyzed the
path selection behavior of motorcyclists while overtaking
light motor vehicles in complex heterogeneous traffic. The
author(s) observed that the decision of an MTW to choose
a specific overtaking path is significantly influenced by the
available width on that path as well as the headway differ-
ence between the lead and lag vehicles. A few researchers
modeled two-wheeler overtaking maneuverability in mixed
traffic and suggested that there is a resilient interaction
between the MTW and neighboring vehicles while maneu-
vering, characterized by intricate traffic phenomena and tra-
jectories (Barmpounakis et al., 2016b, 2016a; Hublart &
Durand, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2012). Barmpounakis et al.
(2016b) and Vlahogianni (2014) observed that the front
vehicle type, spacing from the front and following vehicle,
speed difference with the front vehicle, and platoon exis-
tence were the factors on which the MTW maneuvering
depends while overtaking. Vlahogianni (2014) observed a
negative correlation between the acceptance of critical lateral
distances and the spacing as well as the speed difference
with the front vehicle. However, the existence of platooning
of MTW’s was positively correlated with the likelihood of
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
accepting critical lateral distances while overtaking. Also,
Barmpounakis et al. (2016b) observed that the relative speed
and spacing between two vehicles are crucial while perform-
ing the overtaking maneuver, and it was perceived that a
speed difference of 15 km/h and spacing 10 m between the
leading and subject vehicle was considered sufficient for
overtaking. Furthermore, it was witnessed that the type of
overtaking, speed difference with the lead vehicle and spac-
ing between vehicles were positively related with the PTW
maneuvering while platoon existence was negatively related.
Further, Barmpounakis et al. (2016a) extended the study to
model MTW's cooperation with the leading vehicle using
game theory and revealed that the rate of successful over-
taking was higher when MTV was non-cooperative, whereas
it was less when the leading vehicle was non-cooperative.
The MTW behavior was non-cooperative if motorcyclists
kept a low distance from the leading vehicle. However,
Hublart and Durand (2012) observed that car drivers were
cooperated and gave sufficient space for MTW overtaking.
Also, the speed of MTW was higher than other vehicles in
the traffic stream. Ambarwati et al. (2014) observed that
overtaking likelihood of the subject vehicle was influenced
by the speed difference between the leading and the subject
vehicle. Conversely, limited research on car overtaking
behavior in mixed traffic has been done.
Literature related to filtering maneuver
Several empirical analyses have been carried out to study
the filtering behavior of MTW in a mixed traffic stream
(Ambarwati et al., 2014; Das & Maurya, 2019; Nikias et al.,
2012; Vlahogianni, 2014). Nikias et al. (2012) modeled the
pore width adopted by MTW while performing filtering
maneuvers using regression by introducing several parame-
ters and revealed that MTW speed, platoon existence, pres-
ence of heavy vehicles, and headway in lanes affect the pore
size; however, the model performance was low. Later,
Vlahogianni (2014) extended the study by incorporating
other variables such as longitudinal spacing between the
vehicles in the left or right lane, and used a binary logit
model to determine significant factors. Das and Maurya
(2019, 2020) further studied the riding behavior of MTW
during filtering in urban roads using binary logit and struc-
tural equation model and observed that available pore size,
leading vehicle’s average speed, and speed of MTW were the
critical factors affecting rider’s choice of filtering. However,
Ambarwati et al. (2014) empirically analyzed the vehicular
interactions and observed that the critical pore size depends
on the interacting vehicle type. This analysis involved
MTW-MTW, MTW-car, and car-car interactions. Later, Das
and Maurya (2020) compared three methods, i.e. the raff
method, support vector machine, and binary logit model, to
predict the pore acceptance decision taken by MTW during
filtering and revealed that the support vector machine
method gives much more accurate results. However, no lit-
erature is available on car filtering, though Das and Maurya
(2019) recommended studying the filtering behavior of the
car in mixed traffic scenarios.
3
In summary, with the increased usage of cars and MTW
in urban areas, it is critically important to understand their
behavior while maneuvering in heterogeneous traffic. MTW
drivers overtaking and filtering behavior are well studied by
some researchers in mixed traffic conditions; however, min-
imal studies were available for the car. The present work
investigates a comparative analysis of the car and MTW
maneuvers in the urban mix using enriched video-based
data collection techniques and advanced trajectory data
analysis.
Objectives
This study’s main objective is to compare the driving pat-
tern of motorcyclists and car drivers on urban highways and
to understand the risky behavior of riders while overtaking
and filtering. The comparison is to be done based on the
following research questions:
I. Are motorcyclists and car drivers following different
patterns while overtaking and filtering?
II. What affects motorcyclist’s and car driver decision to
keep smaller lateral width while overtaking?
III. What affects motorcyclist’s and car driver decision to
accept a smaller pore size ratio while filtering?
IV. How accurately does the statistical model classify the
binary data related to motorcyclists and car driver
decisions of overtaking and filtering compared to the
machine learning model?
Methodological approach
The primary aim of the present paper is to evaluate the
overtaking and filtering behavior of motorcyclists and car
drivers. Data collection was carried out using a videogra-
phy survey which was then followed by a data extraction
process. The vehicle trajectory data were analyzed by
using a statistical model, i.e. binary probit model, and
later the accuracy was compared with the machine learn-
ing models. A detailed discussion on methodology was
carried out in subsequent sections. Figure 2 presents the
flow chart exhibiting the methodology followed in the
present paper.
Data acquisition from trajectories
Modeling the driving pattern and understanding the interac-
tion between vehicles in heterogeneous traffic conditions
requires detailed vehicle trajectory data from which different
static and kinematic attributes, such as lateral width, relative
speed, pore size, and so forth, can be extracted. Data from
vehicle trajectories is a useful resource that can be used to
enhance the security and performance of vehicles. The tra-
jectory data can be utilized to design and enhance safety
systems as well as to identify patterns in vehicle behavior.
The data can also be utilized to identify possible congestion
problems and enhance the efficiency of traffic flow. In this
4 H. K. SAINI ET AL.

Figure 2. Flow chart exhibiting methodology.

research work, semi-automated trajectory software (Dehwko, ∝1 x screen +∝2 y screen + ∝3

2019) is used that allows frame-by-frame tracking of indi- Xreal = (2)
∝ 4 x screen +∝5 y screen + 1
vidual vehicle’s positions on the road at a rate of 30 frames
per second (Figure 3).
The software keeps a record of every vehicle’s position ∝6 x screen +∝7 y screen + ∝8
with timestamps, and the desired kinematic attributes are Yreal = (3)
∝ 4 x screen +∝5 y screen + 1
obtained by transforming the screen coordinates into real
coordinates. The system is calibrated using two simple cali-
bration equations (Equations 2 & 3) conveyed by Mikhail where (Xreal, Yreal) is the real-world coordinate, (xscreen,
et al. (2001): four-reference points are used to convert the yscreen) is the video image coordinate, and α1 to α8 are coef-
screen coordinated into real coordinates. ficients that are estimated based on the coordinates of four
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
Figure 3. System calibration using a perspective grid.
Figure 4. Two cases of driving patterns in an urban area under-study.
reference points. In order to apply this approach to collected
data, the video should be recorded on a straight road, not a
convex or concave slope (Lee et al., 2008).
Data analysis
For the first question, as highlighted in the objectives, an
effort to assess the difference in overtaking and filtering pat-
terns concerning the kinematic characteristics of the MTW
and car will be conducted by applying a series of two-sample
t-tests with unequal variables. Before moving further, it is
important to first understand the difference between the
overtaking and filtering patterns with the help of Figure 4.
For the overtaking, the lateral spacing with the overtaken
vehicle B in the reference lane (Lw) and their respective
speeds are introduced to the modeling (Figure 4a). Vehicle
A (position A0) overtook vehicle B and returned to its lane
at position A1. The dotted line shows the overtaking path
adopted by vehicle A. For overtaking, the relative speed is
the difference in the speed of subject vehicle A from the
5
front vehicle B that is being overtaken. In Figure 4b, vehicle
A (position A0) adopted the filtering maneuver to pass
through the other vehicles B and C, by accepting the avail-
able lateral gaps to reach position A2. For filtering, the speed
of vehicles in the left (VL) and right (VR) lane and the pore
size (Ps) between two front vehicles, C and B, are used.
Finally, the relative speed (Vr) is defined as the difference
between the subject vehicle A speed and the average speed
of vehicles C and B in the two lanes involved in filtering, as
shown in Figure 4b. On the way to compare the filtering
maneuver of the car and MTW, a pore size ratio (PSR) was
used. It is obvious that motorcyclists will accept lesser pore
size than car drivers due to lesser width. Hence, the pore
size value is normalized by dividing the width of the subject
vehicle.
Past research reported that the driving/riding patterns
could be effectively compared using measures like pore size
and lateral width that road users maintain while overtaking
(Vlahogianni, 2014). However, as already discussed, in the
present study, the term “pore size” is replaced with pore
6 H. K. SAINI ET AL.
size ratio. The “pore size ratio” will be used to understand
the filtering maneuver, whereas the “lateral width” for
understanding overtaking maneuvers of motorcyclists and
car drivers. The second & third research questions will be
answered by examining the correlation between the kine-
matic characteristics and the likelihood of motorcyclists and
car drivers engaging in risky filtering and overtaking
maneuvers using binary probit regression models. Equation
4 depicts the general form of the probit regression in which
cumulative standard normal distribution function ∅ ( . ) is
used to model the regression function having x1, …, xi is
the set of independent variables.
P {Y 1x1 , x2 ,…xi } = ∅ ( β 0 + β 0 x1 + β1 x2 +…+ β i xi ) (4)
= helps to solve the nonlinearity of the equation. The kernel
Where β1, …, βi are the coefficients of each independent
variable, and βo is the constant term. The analysis targets
revealing the variables that may influence the decision of
motorcyclists and car drivers to accept small lateral width
during overtaking and a small pore size ratio during
filtering.
However, nowadays, the use of advanced artificial intelli-
gence techniques such as support vector machines and arti-
ficial neural network has increased to solve such problems.
Karlaftis and Vlahogianni (2011) discussed differences and
similarities between statistical models and neural networks
in transportation research. In the present paper, the probit
model will be compared with the two machine learning
models, i.e. support vector machine (SVM) and artificial
neural network (ANN). SVM and ANN have been used by
many researchers to solve various transportation problems
such as classification (Pradhan, 2011), clustering (Qader
et al., 2017), regression (Saini & Biswas, 2021), prediction
(Woldemariam, 2022), etc.
ANN consists of three functional layers, i.e. input layer,
hidden layer, and output layer, respectively. A multi-layer
feed-forward backpropagation learning algorithm with sig-
moid as an activation function was used in the present
study. The backpropagation algorithm allows the model to
adjust the weights in the network of connected processing
units. ANN model initialized with random weightage values
subjected to Xavier distribution with an objective to keep
the variance of weightage values constant at each layer. The
values provided at the input layer are multiplied with their
corresponding weightage values, and the weighted sum is
fed forward toward to hidden layer. The activation function
converts the input signal into meaningful output (Saini &
Biswas, 2021). The summed output function and activation
function can be written as in equations (5) and (6)
∑ wi I i ± θ 
Oi =
1
f =
1 + e −Oi
Where ‘wi’ is the weightage values corresponding to the
ith node, ‘Oi’ and ‘Ii’ represent the output and input values
at a particular layer, ‘ ’ is the bias term, ‘f ’ is the activation
function. The basic structure of ANN can be explained in
Appendix 1. The described structure of the network pro-
vides for a discrete choice model probability as the sigmoid
function for neurons bounded between 0 and 1.
Currently, ANN is one of the popular machine learning
approaches; however, there are numerous shortcomings
associated with the conventional ANN, such as difficulty in
the selection of an optimum number of neurons and layers
and difficulty in proving reasonable interpretation of the
overall design of a network. These shortcomings led to
explore another alternative, such as Support Vector Machine
(SVM). SVM is popularly used to solve classification and
regression problems. SVM uses the kernel method, which
separates the underlying data into two decision classes by an
optimal hyperplane. The hyperplane defines the boundary
between two decision classes through a set of data points
that corresponds to the closest accepted or rejected values
for both classes. The hyperplane equation for classification
can now easily be written as:
WT ( X ) + b =0 (7)
Whereas ‘b’ represents the intercept and bias term of
the hyperplane equation, ‘WT’ defines the boundary WT =
{w1, w2, …, wm}, ‘x’ is the input vector. The basic form of
SVM classification for the two-dimensional case is pre-
sented in Appendix 1. In a classification of linearly sepa-
rable data, the approach is to find among the hyperplanes
the one that minimizes the training error. SVM tries to
orient the boundary such that the distance between the
nearest data point and the boundary in each class is max-
imal (Vanajakshi & Rilett, 2004). The distance between
each point and the hyperplane (ξi) can be calculated from
equation (8).
 yi (W T xi + b ) 
ξi = min   (8)
|| W T ||
 
xi
To account for non-separable and noisy data, the factor
‘C’ and the slack variable ξi ≥ 0 was introduced in the equa-
tion to obtain the optical hyperplane, and the objective
function can be written as
 || w ||2 n

Objective function : min  + C ∑ξi  (9)
 2 i =1 
( )
subject to a linear constraint yi W T x + b ≥ 1 − ξi for all
i = 1, 2, …, N
(5)
‘C’ is a hyperparameter that controls the trade-off
between minimizing the loss and maximizing the margin.
For linearly separable cases, the C value tends to be infinite,
(6) whereas C may vary depending on the errors in the trained
solution for non-separable data. With the intention of taking
into account the linearly non-separable data, a kernel func-
tion is used to transmute the data to higher dimensional
spaces where data is linearly separable. A Lagrange
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
multiplier can be introduced to solve the minimization
problem, whose decision boundary can be expressed as
( )
n
f ( x ) = ∑α i yi k xi x j + b (10)
i =1
Where ‘n’ is the set of support vectors; k(xi xj) is the
kernel function.
Numerous types of kernel functions can be used for cre-
ating optimal separating hyperplanes for diverse types of
non-linear data. Some example of kernel function includes
linear kernel, polynomial kernel, radial basis function ker-
nel, Gaussian kernel, etc. In the current study, the linear
kernel function has been used.
All approaches used in the present study attempt to
express the likelihood of an event to occur via a vector of
parameters and functional form. Literature tends to high-
light the use of machine learning algorithm results to be
more flexible and robust (Hernández-Lobato, 2010; Tohka &
van Gils, 2021). However, they incorporate several short-
comings because of the black-box nature, overfitting, limited
ability to extract casual relationships, etc. (Tu, 1996).
Literature designates that these limitations may be improved
if synergies with classical statistics are established.
Data collection and extraction
Field data collection
The videography data was collected for two divided mid-
block sections of urban highways, viz., a four-lane divided
road and a six-lane divided road in Amritsar city, India (see
Figure 5). A high-resolution drone camera was used to cap-
ture the study area for a 2-h duration (during off-peak
hours) uninterruptedly during normal weather conditions
and clear visibility. The section was at least 200 m away
from the nearby intersection and any adjoining road. The
vehicles’ raw trajectory data were further processed to derive
the necessary static and kinematic parameters such as sub-
ject vehicles’ speed, pore size ratio, lateral spacing, headway,
surrounding vehicles, and so forth. The resulting dataset
Figure 5. Two highway sections under study.
7
comprises 1395 events of MTW and car driving maneuvers.
However, these events do not include the complete spec-
trum of driver’s engagements during filtering and overtaking
maneuvers but the subject vehicle’s driver kinematic charac-
teristics at the time stamp where the subject vehicle is
nearby to the other leading vehicle(s) during filtering or
overtaking. The timestamp was fixed by repetitive visual
examination of the videos. The kinematic characteristics of
all vehicles involved and the lateral widths of the adjacent
vehicles from the subject vehicle are of concern to the study.
Data description
Appendix 2 presents a sequence of variables extracted using
video examination. The available extracted variables include
the subject vehicle type (Vs) under analysis, the passenger
car existence in the left (PCL) or right lane (PCR),
three-wheeler presence in the left (3 WL) or right lane
(3 WR), and the heavy vehicle involvement in the left (HVL)
or right (HVR) lane. However, the accuracy of extracted
speed data was required before using for further analysis.
The extracted speed values were compared with the speed
values obtained from the speed gun equipment. The
two-speed values were compared using the coefficient of
determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE),
respectively. The R2 and RMSE values were obtained to be
0.97 and 1.4%, which indicated a high accuracy in the
extracted data. Table 1 presents the geometric and traffic
data of the 4-lane and 6-lane locations selected for the pres-
ent study. Table 2 shows the overtaking and filtering statis-
tics observed for MTW and cars in the field.
Results
Data analysis
To comprehend the differences in the overtaking and filter-
ing behavior of motorcyclists and car drivers, the distribu-
tional characteristics of subject vehicles’ speed, pore size
ratio (PSR), and a lateral width (Lw) are discussed here.
Figures 6 and 7 shows the scatter plots of lateral width
8 H. K. SAINI ET AL.

Table 1. Traffic data of selected locations.

Traffic Composition
Road Type Width of lane (m) Average Volume (veh /h/direction) % PC % MTW % 3W % HV % MV % Bi
4-lane 7.3 1390.5 52.87 30.51 5.87 7.69 2.83 0.21
6-lane 10 2749 19.39 73.08 2.15 0.30 1.70 3.36

Table 2. Overtaking and filtering data. Therefore, the distributional characteristics of motorcyclists
No. of Subject Overtaking Cases Filtering Cases and car drivers were further studied to understand the driv-
Vehicles Observed Observed Observed ing pattern.
Vehicle Type MTW Car MTW Car MTW Car
4-lane Road 1213 1606 74 34 63 28
6-lane Road 3993 1109 83 36 116 30 Are motorcyclists and car drivers following different
patterns while overtaking and filtering?
versus subject vehicle speed for overtaking and pore size The lateral width (Lw) distributional characteristics are eval-
ratio versus subject vehicle speed for filtering maneuvers. As uated to compare the driving maneuver of motorcyclists and
can be perceived, neither the pore size ratio in filtering nor car drivers. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is applied to
the lateral width from the overtaken vehicle during overtak- select the best-fit distribution of the extracted data, and the
ing show a linear relationship with the subject vehicle speed. test decides whether a sample comes from a hypothesized
It reveals intricate behavior that needs a large number of continuous distribution based on the empirical cumulative
variables to be taken into consideration to be elucidated. distribution function. The test outcomes are presented in

Figure 6. Scatter plots of lateral width versus subject vehicle speed while overtaking for a) 4-lane highway and b) 6-lane highway.

Figure 7. Scatter plots of pore size ratio versus subject vehicle speed while filtering for a) 4-lane highway and b) 6-lane highway.
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 9

Appendix 3, accompanied by parameters and the type of
best-fitted theoretical distribution. It can be inferred from
Appendix 3 that in the case of overtaking, the lognormal
distribution may proficiently describe lateral width (Lw), and
a gamma distribution fits the relative speed (Vr). Similar dis-
tributional characteristics for pore size ratio (lognormal) and
relative speed (gamma) were observed for filtering. It is to
note that a successful fit for the spacing in the reference
lane (D) and spacing in the adjacent lane (DA) in case of
overtaking (Figure 4a) and for the spacing in the left lane
(DL) and spacing in the right lane (DR) in case of filtering
(Figure 4b) was not possible. Furthermore, for Lw, 10% of
values of the distribution for overtaking is below 0.7 m (for
MTW) and 1.01 m (for car), whereas the same percentage of
PSR in filtering is below 2 (for MTW) and 1.45 (for car)
(Vlahogianni, 2014). The presented critical values for both
car and MTW in both cases, i.e. overtaking and filtering,
can be considered to depict a particular maneuver risky.
When a subject vehicle overtakes at a lateral width below a
certain critical value, it can be considered a risky overtaking
maneuver. Similarly, if a subject vehicle adopted a filtering
maneuver at a PSR below a particular critical value, it can
be defined as a risky filtering maneuver. The respective val-
ues of Lw and PSR of MTW and car for overtaking and
filtering are considered cut-off values while developing the
probit model.
Figures 8–10 illustrates the theoretical distribution for the
considered variables for both filtering and overtaking in dif-
ferent road conditions. In both road conditions, motorcy-
clists accept smaller lateral widths while overtaking compared
to car drivers. In filtering, motorcyclists accept larger pore
size ratios than car drivers in both road conditions.
Furthermore, in both the driving pattern, motorcyclists
maintain a lesser relative speed with the surrounding vehi-
cles compared to car drivers in a 4-lane highway, whereas
no significant differences were measured in a 6-lane highway.
To further examine the dissimilarities witnessed, a series
of two-sample t-test for comparing means with unequal
variables is analyzed. Table 3 presents the results and
describes that measured mean values of all variables are

Figure 8. Theoretical distributions for lateral width while overtaking for a) 4-lane highway and b) 6-lane highway.

Figure 9. Theoretical distributions for pore size ratio while filtering for a) 4-lane highway and b) 6-lane highway.
10 H. K. SAINI ET AL.

Figure 10. Theoretical distributions for relative speed while a) overtaking on a 4-lane highway, b) overtaking on a 6-lane highway, c) filtering on a 4-lane highway,
d) filtering on a 4-lane highway.

Table 3. Test results for comparing continuous variables for overtaking and filtering basic kinematic parameters.
4-lane highway 6-lane highway
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 95% Conf. Interval Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err. 95% Conf. Interval
Lateral Width (Lw)
MTW 1.180 0.381 0.443 1.096 1.273 1.080 0.327 0.359 1.008 1.151
Car 1.600 0.359 0.617 1.478 1.729 1.390 0.455 0.759 1.240 1.548
Diff* 0.42 0.31
Ha: Significant difference in mean with t = −5.394* Ha: Significant difference in mean with t = −4.259*
Pore size ratio (PSR)
MTW 2.930 1.222 0.154 2.629 3.244 3.92 0.149 1.610 3.623 4.216
Car 2.350 0.554 0.109 2.134 2.581 2.07 0.155 0.875 1.755 2.386
Diff* −0.58 −1.85
Ha: Significant difference in mean with t = 3.068* Ha: Significant difference in mean with t = 8.592*
Relative speed while overtaking
MTW 11.64 6.053 0.704 10.230 10.340 11.770 5.314 0.583 10.613 12.933
Car 19.80 6.942 1.190 17.381 22.225 12.000 8.010 1.335 9.297 14.717
Diff* 8.16 0.23
Ha: Significant difference in mean with t = −6.215* Ho: no significant difference in mean t = −0.188**
Relative speed while filtering
MTW 8.650 5.146 0.648 7.353 9.945 8.990 5.621 0.522 7.953 10.02
Car 18.700 10.96 2.070 14.458 22.956 9.830 6.520 1.190 7.392 12.261
Diff* 10.05 0.84
Ha: Significant difference in mean with t = −4.635* Ho: no significant difference in mean t = − 0.706**
Diff = mean (Variable for car) – mean (Variable for MTW).
*
Significant in 1% level of significance. (null hypothesis rejected).
**
Insignificant result. (null hypothesis accepted).
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 11

statistically unequal between samples for both overtaking
and filtering except the relative speed in the case of a 6-lane
highway. Therefore, the manner motorcyclists and car driv-
ers behave during overtaking and filtering might have differ-
ent characteristics that should be individually studied.
What affects the car driver and motorcyclist’s decision
to keep smaller lateral width while overtaking?
The probit model has been used in this study over the logit
regression model. As suggested by Cakmakyapan and
Goktas (2013), the probit model performs better in small
datasets, whereas logit models fit well for larger datasets
(500 and 1000). Since the dataset in the present study is
limited to 179, a binary probit model is used to examine
which variable may be associated with the motorcyclist’s
and car driver’s decision to drive through the traffic stream
with lateral width less than the cut-off value. The Lw =0.7m
(for MTW) and 1.01 m (for car) were measured as the
cut-off points, revealed from the distributional characteris-
tics as discussed in the previous sub-section, to categorize
the lateral widths in binary form (marked as 1 if Lw <
0.7 m for MTW and Lw < 1.01 m for car and marked as 0
for the rest of the values in the binary output of probit
model). The correlation matrices for MTW and car were
developed, and the correlated input variables were excluded
from the modeling analysis. Two separate models were ana-
lyzed for MTW and car overtaking. Appendices 4 and 5
present the correlation matrices of MTW and car for over-
taking maneuvers.
Table 4 represents the outcomes of the best-fitted probit
model concerning coefficients and the marginal effects.
From the regression results, it can be inferred that the type
of overtaken vehicle, road type, spacing in the reference
lane, and spacing in the adjacent lane was found to be
insignificant variables for both vehicle categories. The rela-
tive speed of the subject vehicle and the overtaken vehicle is
a significant variable but negatively related to the likelihood
of riding/driving with smaller lateral widths. Furthermore,
the overtaking side was significantly associated with the
probability of maintaining smaller widths in the case of
motorcyclists. Interestingly, results indicate that there is no
effect of the type of overtaken vehicle on lateral width for
motorcyclists and car drivers.
What affects motorcyclist’s and car driver’s decision to
accept a smaller pore size ratio while filtering?
A binary probit model, like in the case of overtaking, is
used to examine the association of independent parameters
to the decision of a rider or driver to accept a small pore
size ratio between the vehicles filtered in urban highways.
The cut-off value for the pore size ratio was considered 2
and 1.5 for motorcyclists and car drivers, respectively, based
on the distributional characteristics of pore size ratio values,
as discussed in the previous subsection. The correlation
analyses were conducted before modeling to identify the
correlated independent parameters, and those were excluded
from further analyses. Appendices 6 and 7 illustrate the cor-
relation matrices of MTW and car in the case of filtering.
Table 5 presents the results of the best-fitted probit model
for coefficients and the marginal effects for the case of fil-
tering. From the regression results, it can be inferred that
spacing in the right lane and the type of surrounding vehi-
cles were found to be insignificant variables for MTW,
whereas, in the case of a car, road type, spacing in the left
lane, and right lane, type of surrounding vehicles were not
found to be significant variables. The relative speed of the
subject vehicle and the average speed of surrounding vehi-
cles (through which filtering is to be done) is a significant
variable negatively related to the likelihood of riding/driving
accepting a smaller pore size ratio. Furthermore, the road
type and spacing in the left lane are significantly associated
with the probability of accepting a smaller pore size ratio in
the case of motorcyclists.
How accurately does the statistical model classify the
binary data related to motorcyclists and car driver
decisions of overtaking and filtering compared to the
machine learning model?
The accuracy in predicting the probability of MTW and car
drivers to overtake and filter through mixed traffic using
probit models may be considered fair. However, there exist
several machine learning models with better discrimination
capabilities, but the accuracy of these models needs to be
examined. Therefore, a comparative study is deemed essen-
tial. For comparison with statistical models, two machine
learning models, i.e. SVM and ANN, are considered in the

Table 5. Binary probit model results for filtering.

MTW Car
Table 4. Binary probit model results for overtaking.
Variables Coefficient Variables Coefficient
MTW Car
Vr 0.061* Vr 0.414*
Variables Coefficient Variables Coefficient 3WL 0.349 PCL −6.305
Vr −0.109** Vr −0.114* 3WR −0.101 PCR −0.571
OS −0.698** OS −0.266 HVL 1.541 MTWL −0.916
VType 0.029 VType 0.422 HVR 0076 MTWR −7.015
RType 0.310 RType −0.096 RType 0.876** 3WL −0.677
D −0.270 D 0.025 DL 0.826** HVL 7.899
DA 6.092 DA 5.443 DR −1.174 DL −5.850
Constant −5.788 Constant −5.633 Constant −2.063 Constant 11.748
Significant in 1% level of significance, * Significant in 5% level of
** **
Significant in 1% level of significance.
significance. *
Significant in 5% level of significance.
12 H. K. SAINI ET AL.

present study. ANN consists of three functional layers, i.e. The overall prediction success rate can be achieved from
one input layer, two hidden layers, and one output layer, Table 7 by subtracting the misclassification rate by 1. The
respectively. The network will predict the likelihood of average prediction values for both driving patterns for probit,
accepting or rejecting the critical PSR in case of filtering ANN, and SVM model are found to be 75.15%, 77.65%, and
and lateral width in overtaking using the input (indepen- 90.00%. The skill scores indicate the better performance of
dent) variables that are already utilized in the probit model. the SVM model (Table 7). Similar to the findings of the
The stopping criteria used was five consecutive steps with present study, Yu et al. (2016) reported that the SVM models
zero decrease in error. The learning rate was considered to predict more accurately than the ANN model. However, the
be 0.1 with a momentum of 0.9. The dataset was divided prediction success rate for all models differs by a marginal
into three subsets, with 70% for training, 15% for validation, amount. The performance of the three developed classifica-
and 15% for testing, which will be used to test the accuracy tion models was further examined from the developed 2 × 2
of the model. confusion matrix by computing different categorical statistics
Further, SVM is a supervised binary classifier technique and scores such as precision, recall, F1-score, misclassifica-
that separates the critical PSR and lateral width by maximiz- tion rate, and False Alarm Ratio (FAR) (Das & Maurya,
ing the margins between two hyperplanes representing the 2020; Wilks, 2011). It is evident from Table 7 that there is a
extremities of two decision classes. The observed dataset marginal difference (0.50%) between the average prediction
was divided into training (70%), validation (15%), and test- values of the probit and ANN model; however, the SVM
ing (15%) of the model. The variables observed from the model has a significant difference compared to others.
correlation matrix were used to develop the SVM model
using MATLAB software. A 10-fold cross-validation method
was employed to acquire the optical parameters for the Discussion
SVM classifier Das and Maurya (2020). A simple linear ker- The study presented a comparison of motorcyclists and car
nel function was used to develop the model with bayesian driving patterns through traffic in urban highways with two
optimization. The classification results of all three models lanes and three lanes per direction. Data were collected using
considered in the present study are presented in Table 6. drone cameras to extract two types of driving patterns, i.e.
(i) overtaking and (ii) filtering. The results have identified
Table 6. Classification results for probit, ANN, and SVM models for overtaking significant differences between the motorcyclist’s and car
and filtering. driving maneuvers in terms of kinematic characteristics.
Driving A new parameter was proposed in the present study to
Pattern Model Type MTW Car
understand the filtering maneuvers of road users, i.e. “pore
Overtaking Probit Typical Critical Typical Critical
Model LW LW LW LW
size ratio (PSR).” PSR is the ratio of pore size accepted/
Typical LW 0 (p) 11 (q) 3 (p) 5 (q) rejected by the vehicle and the subject vehicle’s width. The
Critical LW 2 (r) 36 (s) 0 (r) 51 (s) parameter was introduced to compare the accepted pore size
ANN Typical LW 1 (p) 10 (q) 4 (p) 1 (q)
Critical LW 3 (r) 35 (s) 1 (r) 51 (s)
of road users across vehicles with varying widths. The study
SVM Typical LW 2 (p) 9 (q) 3 (p) 2 (q) aimed to answer four research questions highlighted in the
Critical LW 0 (r) 38 (s) 1 (r) 50 (s) objectives. As a response to the first research question, a
Filtering Probit Typical Critical Typical Critical
Model PSR PSR PSR PSR
comparison of kinematic parameters such as lateral width
Typical PSR 2 (p) 4 (q) 0 (p) 4 (q) (in case of overtaking), pore size ratio (in case of filtering),
Critical PSR 3 (r) 29 (s) 2 (r) 7 (s) and relative speed revealed that the driving patterns of
ANN Typical PSR 0 (p) 4 (q) 0 (p) 3 (q)
Critical PSR 4 (r) 30 (s) 2 (r) 8 (s)
motorcyclists and car drivers are different. The comparison
SVM Typical PSR 2 (p) 2 (q) 1 (p) 2 (q) was based on comparing the mean and distribution charac-
Critical PSR 0 (r) 34 (s) 0 (r) 10 (s) teristics of the kinematic parameters. From Table 3, it can
Note: p, q, r, and s values represent the number of true negatives, number of be observed that motorcyclists maintain a smaller lateral
false alarms, number of misses, and number of true positives.
width from the overtaken vehicles compared to car drivers

Table 7. Skill values for probit, ANN, and SVM models.

For Overtaking For Filtering
Skill scores Formulae Vehicle Type Probit ANN SVM Probit ANN SVM Criteria
Precision s MTW 0.765 0.777 0.808 0.878 0.882 0.944 Percent of correct predictions
Car 0.910 0.980 0.961 0.636 0.727 0.833
Recall (q + s ) MTW 0.947 0.921 1.000 0.906 0.882 1.000 1 Correct estimation of all critical
s
Car 1.000 0.980 0.980 0.777 0.800 1.000 values
False Alarm Ratio (FAR) (r + s) MTW 0.234 0.222 0.191 0.121 0.117 0.055 0 Best score, 1 worst score
q
Car 0.089 0.019 0.020 0.363 0.272 0.166
(q + s )
F1-score Precison*Recall MTW 0.8470 0.843 0.894 0.892 0.882 0.971 1 Best score, 0 worst score
2 Car 0.953 0.980 0.970 0.700 0.761 0.909
Precision + Recall
Misclassification rate (q + r ) MTW 0.265 0.265 0.183 0.184 0.210 0.052 1 highly inaccurate, 0 Best score
Car 0.084 0.035 0.053 0.461 0.384 0.111
( p + q + r + s)
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
while overtaking, which shows motorcyclist’s risk-taking
behavior. Also, it was analyzed that motorcyclists accept a
larger pore size ratio than car drivers, showing safe riding
behavior while filtering. To further analyze the filtering
behavior for both vehicle categories, the frequency of filter-
ing was compared, and it was found that the motorcyclists
frequently perform filtering, whereas the percentage of car
driver’s filtering was less (Table 2). In relative speed, no con-
clusive evidence was inferred because the results were differ-
ent for different categories of roads.
In response to the second and third research questions,
binary probit regression models were developed for both
vehicle categories resulting in a set of kinematic parameters
that were significant in examining the probability of main-
taining a smaller lateral width from the vehicle being over-
taken and the probability to navigate through a smaller pore
size ratio while filtering. The relative speed turned out to be
the only significant parameter that was associated with the
probability of accepting smaller values of lateral width and
pore size ratio (for both car drivers and motorcyclists). The
negative sign of the coefficient for relative speed indicates
that motorcyclists and car drivers accept smaller values of
lateral width and pore size ratio at lower relative speed.
Interestingly, it was observed that the decision of drivers
and riders was not affected by the type of surrounding vehi-
cles except in the case of car filtering.
Finally, in response to the fourth research question, a
comparative study showed that the support vector machine
model was found to perform better than other models.
Considering the high accuracy and good generalization of
SVM for a small dataset (Burges, 1998), this technique can
be considered an efficient tool for classifying data of filter-
ing and overtaking for both MTW and car drivers at
mid-block sections.
Evidently, the dissimilarities in driving patterns of motor-
cyclists and car drivers hint at the need to develop separate
maneuvering models for both road users. The results of this
study may ameliorate the representational power of existing
simulation models and will also be useful in road safety for
the improvement of countermeasures concentrating on pal-
liating those parameters that may impact the probability of
showing risky behavior during overtaking or filtering in
urban roads. The inferences from the study can be used in
augmenting the consistency of microsimulation models.
Also, the results could be incorporated into driver warning
systems and in the intelligent transportation system. The
complex maneuvering patterns of vehicles, especially cars
and MTW in mixed traffic streams need to be modeled
with intelligent systems for vehicles that can assist the vehi-
cle driver in becoming aware of the upcoming risky situa-
tions conveniently. Using wireless communications and data
transmission between vehicles improves road network safety
and proficiency, reducing congestion and risk by conveying
accurate admonitions to the vehicles.
Current advisories regarding filtering or lane splitting in
different countries are predominantly based on speed limits.
In India, urban roads having a maximum speed limit of
40 km/h; wherever specifically permitted by road signs,
motorcyclists may filter between three and four-wheeled
13
vehicles when the speed difference between the motorcy-
clists and the other vehicles does not exceed 15 km/h
(MoRTH, 2017), while the United States allows lane splitting
up to 80 km/h speed with a maximum speed differential of
24 km/h (Rice et al., 2015). The United Kingdom advises
caution when filtering but has no specific speed limits (DfT
& D. for T, 2022). However, along with the speed limits,
there is a need to provide an advisory based on the speci-
fied lateral width while overtaking and pore size ratio during
filtering or lane splitting. The recommendation will be help-
ful in improving the driver/rider training programmes as it
can increase awareness among drivers about the importance
of maintaining safe distances during these maneuvers.
Incorporating recommendations for minimum pore size
ratio and lateral width in driver training programs can
enhance drivers’ spatial awareness and their ability to judge
distances accurately. Also, this can help drivers make
better-informed decisions, anticipate potential hazards, and
choose appropriate moments to filter or overtake, which
further contributes to an overall improvement in road safety.
Therefore, the present study suggests a guideline using lat-
eral width for overtaking and pore size ratio for filtering
with a recommended minimum lateral width of 0.7 m for
motorcycles (approx. one times the width of motorcycle)
and 1.01 m for car (approx. half the width of car) while
overtaking, and the PSR should be at least 2 (approx. 2
times the width of motorcycle) for motorcycles and 1.45
(approx. 1.5 times the width of car) while filtering.
Overall, the present study adds to the existing knowledge
of literature by using an advanced trajectory data analysis to
understand and compare overtaking and filtering maneuvers
of car drivers and motorcyclists under heterogeneous traffic
conditions. More than just proposing a new indicator to
understand filtering maneuvers, the study presents the
parameters affecting the decision-making of both road users
under critical driving/riding events. Given the above, there
are still a few limitations in the present research which have
great potential to be explored in the near future. The pres-
ent study focused only on understanding the filtering and
overtaking maneuver; however, other lateral and longitudi-
nal behaviors of vehicles were not studied. Additionally, the
research was conducted on a limited number of observa-
tions and road categories, and thus, the findings may only
apply to specific traffic conditions and vehicular speeds.
Variations in road geometry, traffic composition, environ-
mental factors, and diverse driving behavior of motorcyclists
and car drivers across different countries may also impact
the results. Therefore, future work should emphasize com-
paring the driving pattern of car drivers and motorcyclists
in different traffic/geometric conditions, cultural contexts, or
countries to make the results more transferable. Also, the
determination of the minimum road width required for safe
MTW filtering can also be carried out in the future.
Conclusions
The present study evaluates the overtaking and filtering
maneuvers of cars and MTW under heterogeneous traffic
14 H. K. SAINI ET AL.
conditions of Indian urban highways using traffic data col-
lected with aerial videography technique. A new concept of
"pore size ratio" (PSR) has been introduced as a novel
parameter to aid in the comprehension of how road users
execute filtering maneuvers. Significant differences in the
kinematic characteristics of motorcyclists and car drivers
were identified, wherein motorcyclists demonstrated
risk-taking behavior by maintaining a smaller lateral width
from overtaken vehicles during overtaking while exhibiting
safe riding behavior during filtering by accepting a larger
pore size ratio than car drivers. The study utilized binary
probit regression models to determine the significant kine-
matic parameters affecting the likelihood of maintaining a
smaller lateral width and navigating through a smaller pore
size ratio. The study observed that the support vector
machine model outperformed the statistical model and arti-
ficial neural network model in terms of prediction accuracy.
The findings of the study offer valuable insights that can be
utilized to enhance the accuracy of microsimulation models,
driver warning systems, and intelligent transportation sys-
tems, albeit with the limitations of a limited dataset and
road categories. Also, the present study didn’t considered the
longitudinal or lateral behavior of drivers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Department of Science & Technology,
Government of India under Startup Research Grant (SRG/2020/000928).
References
Agarwal, A., & Lämmel, G. (2016). Modeling seepage behavior of
smaller vehicles in mixed traffic conditions using an agent based
simulation. Transportation in Developing Economies, 2(2), 8. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40890-016-0014-9
Ambarwati, L., Pel, A. J., Verhaeghe, R., & van Arem, B. (2014).
Empirical analysis of heterogeneous traffic flow and calibration of
porous flow model. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 48, 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.09.017
Barmpounakis, E. N., Vlahogianni, E. I., & Golias, J. C. (2016a).
Modeling cooperation and powered-two wheelers short-term strate-
gic decisions during overtaking in urban arterials. International
Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 5(4), 227–238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2016.11.001
Barmpounakis, E. N., Vlahogianni, E. I., & Golias, J. C. (2016b).
Vision-based multivariate statistical modeling for powered
two-wheelers maneuverability during overtaking in urban arterials.
Transportation Letters, 8(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1179/194278751
5Y.0000000020
Beanland, V., Pammer, K., Sledziowska, M., & Stone, A. (2015). Drivers’
attitudes and knowledge regarding motorcycle lane filtering practices.
Proceedings of the 2015 Australasian Road Safety Conference, 1–11.
Broughton, P. S., Fuller, R., Stradling, S., Gormley, M., Kinnear, N.,
O’dolan, C., & Hannigan, B. (2009). Conditions for speeding be-
haviour: A comparison of car drivers and powered two wheeled
riders. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 12(5), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.07.001
Burges, C. J. C. (1998). A tutorial on support vector machines for pat-
tern recognition. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(2), 121–
167. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009715923555
Cakmakyapan, S., & Goktas, A. (2013). A comparison of binary logit
and probit models with a simulation study. Journal of Social and
Economic Statistics, 2(1), 1–17.
Clabaux, N., Fournier, J.-Y., & Michel, J.-E. (2014). Powered two-wheeler
drivers’ risk of hitting a pedestrian in towns. Journal of Safety
Research, 51, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2014.07.002
Clabaux, N., Fournier, J.-Y., & Michel, J.-E. (2017). Powered two-wheeler
riders’ risk of crashes associated with filtering on urban roads.
Traffic Injury Prevention, 18(2), 182–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/153
89588.2016.1225298
Das, S., & Maurya, A. K. (2019). Modeling maneuverability of motor-
ized two-wheelers during filtering in urban roads. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
2673(5), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119842818
Das, S., & Maurya, A. K. (2020). Pore acceptance predictions of moto-
rised Two-Wheelers during filtering at urban Mid-Block sections.
Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 24(4), 352–364. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2020.1735385
Dehwko, C. K. (2019). Kinovea. http://www.kinovea.org
DfT, D. for T. (2022). The Highway Code. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/
the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203
George Oketch, T. (2000). New modeling approach for mixed-traffic
streams with nonmotorized vehicles. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1705(1), 61–69. https://
doi.org/10.3141/1705-10
Hernández-Lobato, J. M. (2010). Balancing flexibility and robustness in
machine learning: Semi-parametric methods and sparse linear mod-
els. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Computer Science,
University of Autonoma, Madrid, Spain.
Hublart, A., & Durand, J.-F. (2012). Risks for powered two-wheelers
and filtering between lanes on urban motorways. In European
Transport Conference 2012Association for European Transport (AET).
Transportation Research Board.
Huth, V., Füssl, E., & Risser, R. (2014). Motorcycle riders’ perceptions,
attitudes and strategies: Findings from a focus group study.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 25,
74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.05.004
Karlaftis, M. G., & Vlahogianni, E. I. (2011). Statistical methods versus
neural networks in transportation research: Differences, similarities
and some insights. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 19(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2010.10.004
Lee, T.-C., Polak, J. W., & Bell, M. G. H. (2008). Trajectory Extractor
user manual version 1.0. In Centre for Transport Studies, Imperial
College London, United Kingdom. www. cts. cv. ic. ac. uk/documents/
publications/iccts01155. pdf. Accessed July (Vol. 1).
Lin, M.-R., & Kraus, J. F. (2009). A review of risk factors and patterns
of motorcycle injuries. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 41(4),
710–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.010
Mannering, F. L., & Grodsky, L. L. (1995). Statistical analysis of motor-
cyclists’ perceived accident risk. Accident; Analysis and Prevention,
27(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)00041-j
Mikhail, E. M., Bethel, J. S., & McGlone, J. C. (2001). Mathematics for
photogrammetry. In Introduction to modern photogrammetry (pp.
351–386). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
MoRTH. (2017). Motor vehicle driving regulation. https://morth.nic.in/
sites/default/files/Motor-Vehicle-Driving-Regulation-2017.pdf
MoRTH. (2021). Road accidents in India. Transportation Research Wing.
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.
Munigety, C. R., & Mathew, T. V. (2016). Towards behavioral modeling
of drivers in mixed traffic conditions. Transportation in Developing
Economies, 2(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40890-016-0012-y
Nguyen, L., Hanaoka, S., & Kawasaki, T. (2012). Describing non-lane-
based motorcycle movements in motorcycle-only traffic flow.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2281(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.3141/2281-10
Nikias, V. A., Vlahogianni, E. I., Lee, T. C., & Golias, J. C. (2012).
Determinants of powered two-wheelers virtual lane width in urban
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
arterials. IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
Proceedings, ITSC, 4943(0), 1205–1210. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ITSC.2012.6338619
Pradhan, A. (2011). Network traffic classification using support vector
machine and artificial neural network. International Journal of
Computer Applications, 8, 8–12.
Qader, K., Adda, M., & Al-Kasassbeh, M. (2017). Comparative analysis
of clustering techniques in network traffic faults classification.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and
Communication Engineering, 5(4), 6551–6563.
Rice, T., Troszak, L., & Erhardt, T. (2015). Motorcycle lane-splitting and
safety in California. University of California.
Saini, H. K., & Biswas, S. (2021). Estimating lateral placement and lane
indiscipline of urban mixed traffic of a developing country: An
ANN-assisted approach. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
48(11), 1571–1581. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2020-0250
Soni, R., Vasudevan, V., & Dutta, B. (2020). Analysis of overtaking pat-
terns of Indian drivers with data collected using a LiDAR.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 74,
139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.08.016
Sugandhi, U., & Chunchu, M. (2017). Analysis and modeling of
two-wheeler-overtaking-LMV maneuver in heterogeneous traffic
stream. Transportation in Developing Economies, 3(2), 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40890-017-0046-9
Theofilatos, A., & Yannis, G. (2015). A review of powered-two-wheeler be-
haviour and safety. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety
Promotion, 22(4), 284–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2014.908224
Tohka, J., & van Gils, M. (2021). Evaluation of machine learning algo-
rithms for Health and Wellness applications: A tutorial. Computers
in Biology and Medicine, 132, 104324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com-
pbiomed.2021.104324
Troutbeck, R. J. (1981). Overtaking behaviour on Australian two-lane ru-
ral highways. Australian Road Research Board, Special Report SR20.
15
Tu, J. V. (1996). Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial neural
networks versus logistic regression for predicting medical outcomes.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(11), 1225–1231. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00002-9
Vanajakshi, L., & Rilett, L. R. (2004). A comparison of the per-
formance of artificial neural networks and support vector
machines for the prediction of traffic speed. IEEE Intelligent
Vehicles Symposium, 2004, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/
IVS.2004.1336380
Vlahogianni, E. I. (2014). Powered-Two-Wheelers kinematic character-
istics and interactions during filtering and overtaking in urban arte-
rials. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 24, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.004
Vlahogianni, E. I., Karlaftis, M. G., & Orfanou, F. P. (2012). Modeling
the effects of weather and traffic on the risk of secondary incidents.
Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(3), 109–117. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2012.688384
Vlahogianni, E. I., Yannis, G., & Golias, J. C. (2013). Critical power
two wheeler driving patterns at the emergence of an incident.
Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 58, 340–345. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.026
WHO. (2018). Global status report on road safety 2018. World Health
Organization.
Wilks, D. S. (2011). Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences (Vol.
100). Academic press.
Woldemariam, W. (2022). A framework for transportation infrastruc-
ture cost prediction: A support vector regression approach.
Transportation Letters, 14(9), 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/1942
7867.2021.1985895
Yu, B., Wang, Y. T., Yao, J. B., & Wang, J. Y. (2016). A comparison of
the performance of ANN and SVM for the prediction of traffic ac-
cident duration. Neural Network World, 26(3), 271–287. https://doi.
org/10.14311/NNW.2016.26.015
16 H. K. SAINI ET AL.

Appendix 1. Basic structure of (a) ANN and, (b) SVM

Appendix 2. Description of variables measured

Variables Depiction of Variables
For overtaking
 OS Side through which overtaking is completed [1-left/0-right]
Vs Speed of subject vehicle (km/h)
Vo Speed of overtaken vehicle (km/h)
VType Type of overtaken vehicle (MTW, car, LCV, HCV)
 Lw Lateral width while overtaking (m)
Vr Relative speed while overtaking (km/h)
 RType 4-lane highway or 6-lane highway
 D Spacing in the reference lane (m)
 DA Spacing in the adjacent lane (m)
For filtering
PSR Pore size ratio
Vavg Average speed between the left front and right front leading vehicle (km/h)
Vr Relative speed between the average of the front and subject vehicles’ speed (km/h)
PCL Presence of passenger car on the left side [1/0]
PCR Presence of passenger car on the right-side [1/0]
3WL Presence of a Three-wheeler on the left side [1/0]
3WR Presence of a Three-wheeler on the right-side [1/0]
HVL Presence of heavy vehicle on the left side [1/0]
HVR `Presence of heavy vehicle on the right-side [1/0]
 DL Spacing in the left lane (m)
 DR Spacing in the right lane (m)
 MV Medium vehicles
In India, drivers follow left-hand side driving.
*

Appendix 3. Kolmogorov–Smirnov D test results

4-lane highway 6-lane highway
Variable Distribution Parameter K-S statistic D P-value Distribution Parameter K-S statistic D P-value
Overtaking - MTW
Lw Lognormal µ = 0.119, σ = 0.320 0.0454 0.996 Lognormal µ = 0.027, σ = 0.330 0.1299 0.111
Vr Gamma α = 3.695, β = 3.149 0.0416 0.998 Gamma α = 4.908, β = 2.399 0.0585 0.923
Overtaking - Car
Lw Lognormal µ = 0.449, σ = 0.216 0.1174 0.693 Lognormal µ = 0.286, σ = 0.301 0.0912 0.899
Vr Gamma α = 8.137, β = 2.434 0.0651 0.997 Gamma α = 2.247, β = 5.348 0.1189 0.645
Filtering- MTW
PSR Lognormal µ = 0.989, σ = 0.428 0.0848 0.723 Lognormal µ = 1.287, σ = 0.399 0.0455 0.961
Vr Gamma α = 2.824, β = 3.062 0.0693 0.902 Gamma α = 2.556, β = 3.516 0.0652 0.683
Filtering- Car
PSR Lognormal µ = 0.832, σ = 0.226 0.0984 0.942 Lognormal µ = 0.644, σ = 0.417 0.1500 0.426
Vr Gamma α = 2.915, β = 6.418 0.1071 0.871 Gamma α = 2.272, β = 4.326 0.1201 0.736
 International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 17

Appendix 4. Correlation matrix for overtaking of MTW

Vr OS VType RType D DA
Vr 1.000
OS 0.278 1.000
VType 0.045 0.067 1.000
RType −0.128 0.003 0.247 1.000
D −0.146 −0.088 0.024 −0.163 1.000
DA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

Appendix 5. Correlation matrix for overtaking of car

Vr OS VType RType D DA
Vr 1.000
OS 0.294 1.000
VType −0.206 −0.145 1.000
RType 0.026 0.099 −0.005 1.00
D −0.279 0.053 −0.043 −0.22 1.000
DA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

Appendix 6. Correlation matrix for filtering of MTW

Vr PCL PCR MTWL MTWR 3WL 3WR HVL HVR RType DL DR
Vr 1.000
PCL 0.030 1.000
PCR −0.191 0.314 1.000
MTWL −0.045 0.560 0.319 1.000
MTWR −0.197 0.304 0.844 0.203 1.000
3WL −0.001 0.624 0.309 0.657 0.278 1.000
3WR −0.005 0.306 0.764 0.325 0.691 0.300 1.000
HVL −0.280 0.269 0.046 0.284 0.047 0.332 0128 1.000
HVR −0.043 0.217 0.713 0.167 0.639 0.121 0.601 −0.118 1.000
RType 0.012 0.023 0.072 0.229 0.097 0.138 0.088 0.096 −0.017 1.000
DL −0.143 −0.039 0.094 −0.089 0.123 −0.098 0.025 −0.190 0.035 −0.106 1.000
DR −0.005 −0.025 −0.066 0.188 −0.072 0.169 −0.028 0.144 −0.059 −0.202 −0.353 1.00

Appendix 7. Correlation matrix for filtering of car

Vr PCL PCR MTWL MTWR 3WL 3WR HVL HVR RType DL DR
Vr 1.000
PCL 0.000 1.000
PCR 0.033 0.000 1.000
MTWL −0.449 0.000 0.111 1.000
MTWR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
3WL 0.077 0.000 0.320 0.565 0.000 1.000
3WR 0.845 0.000 0.326 −0.396 0.000 0.269 1.000
HVL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
HVR 0.002 0.000 0.704 0.304 0.000 0.587 0.260 0.000 1.000
RType 0.721 0.000 −0.242 −0.424 0.000 −0.023 0.637 0.000 −0.361 1.000
DL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000
DR 0.805 0.000 −0.068 −0.238 0.000 0.345 0.768 0.000 0.066 0.741 0.000 1.00