Comparing Different Metrics Quantifying Pedestrian Safety
Keywords:pedestrian safety, metrics, analysis, density, velocity, flow, pressure
AbstractThe quantification of pedestrian safety is an important research topic. If reliable quantification is possible, it can be used to predict and prevent dangerous situations, such as the crowd crush at the 2010 Love Parade. To quantify safety, we can use several metrics like density, velocity, flow and pressure. Unfortunately, there are several methods to evaluate these metrics, which may give different results. This can lead to different interpretations of similar situations. Researchers compare these metrics visually or search for trends in fundamental diagrams. This is inherently subjective. We propose an objective methodology to compare these methods, where we emphasize the different quantifications of peak “dangerousness”. Furthermore, we refine existing methods to include the obstacles in environments by replacing the Euclidean distance with the geodesic distance. In our experimental analysis, we observe large differences between different methods for the same scenarios. We conclude that switching to a different method of analysing crowd safety can lead to different conclusions, which asks for standardisation in this research field. Since we are concerned with human safety, we prefer to err on the side of caution. Therefore, we advocate the use of our refined Gaussian-based method, which consistently reports higher levels of danger.
U. Chattaraj, A. Seyfried and P. Chakroborty, “Comparison of pedestrian fundamental diagram
across cultures,” Advances in Complex Systems, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 393–405, 2009.
M. Creasemeyer and A. Schadschneider, “Simulation of Merging Pedestrian Streams at
T-Junctions: Comparison of Density Definitions,” Traffic and Granular Flow ’13, pp. 291-298,
C. Dias and R. Lovreglio, “Calibrating cellular automaton models for pedestrians walking through
corners”, Physics Letters A, vol. 382, no. 19, pp. 1255-1261, 2018
D.C. Duives, W. Daamen, and S.P. Hoogendoorn, “Quantification of the level of crowdedness for
pedestrian movements,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 427, pp. 162–
J.J. Fruin, “Pedestrian planning and design,” Technical report, 1971.
D. Helbing and P. Mukerji, “Crowd disasters as systemic failures: analysis of the love parade
disaster,” EPJ Data Science, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012.
D. Helbing, A. Johansson, and H. Z. Al-Abideen, “Dynamics of crowd disasters: An empirical
study,” Physical review E, vol. 75, no. 4, 2007.
A. Hillebrand, M. van den Akker, R. Geraerts, and H. Hoogeveen, “Performing multicut on
walkable environments,” International Conference on Combinatorial Optimization and
Applications, Hong Kong, 2016, vol. 10043, pp. 311–325.
A. Hillebrand. (2018, June 1). [Online]. Available:
R. Kimmel, A. Amir, and A.M. Bruckstein, “Finding shortest paths on surfaces using level sets
propagation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 17, no. 6, pp.
J. Mitchell, “Shortest paths among obstacles in the plane,” International Journal of
Computational Geometry & Applications, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 309–332, 1996.
M. Plaue, G. Bärwolff and H. Schwandt, “On measuring pedestrian density and flow fields in
dense as well as sparse crowds,” Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics 2012, Zurich, 2014, vol. 1,
B. Steffen and A. Seyfried, “Methods for measuring pedestrian density, flow, speed and direction
with minimal scatter,” Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications, vol. 389, no. 9, pp.
W. van Toll, N. Jaklin, and R. Geraerts, “Towards believable crowds: A generic multi-level
framework for agent navigation,” ASCI.OPEN, 2015.
F.L.M. van Wageningen-Kessels, S.P. Hoogendoorn and W. Daamen, “Extension of edie’s
definitions for pedestrian dynamics,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 2, pp. 507–512,
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Arne Hillebrand, Han Hoogeveen, Roland Geraerts
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Collective Dynamics agree to publish their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
This license allows:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Authors retain copyright of their work. They are permitted and encouraged to post items submitted to Collective Dynamics on personal or institutional websites and repositories, prior to and after publication (while providing the bibliographic details of that publication).