Ticon vs detectors: accuracy first!

11/04/2015
4 min read
Close-up of a white traffic surveillance camera overlooking a busy multilane highway with moving vehicles.

Methodology

The field study is based on direct comparison of the results of Ticon’s calculation and traffic detectors measurements. All discrepancies have been checked by video surveillance and judged accordingly.

Intersection PRFN-NMKN

Map with locations marked by detector graphs; three detectors in green boxes showing similar data patterns and two detectors in red boxes showing differing results, with labels noting conformity and difference.Line graph showing vehicle flow, density, and speed over time from 09:35 to 08:15, with annotations stating Ticon’s and detector’s results are close and no further verification is required.Two graphs comparing vehicle volume from 9 to 30 AM; detector measurement shows 160 vehicles per hour with colored traffic intensity data, Ticon measurement shows 1382 vehicles per hour as a blue line graph.

Judgement

Video registration has shown traffic volume at 9-30AM as 1625 veh/h.
Ticon proven accuracy is 85.1% for this measurement.
Detector is malfunctioning

Traffic camera view of a street with cars, pedestrians, and a large billboard, alongside charts showing speed, counts, and volume data for Profsoyuznaya ulitsa from October 10 to 14, 2016.

Avenue NHMV@TSRP

Map with traffic flow data and graphs comparing Ticon’s and detector’s results, highlighting a difference exceeding 15%.

Ticon vs Traffic detector’s judgement performed with the use of video surveillance camera

Busy multi-lane road with traffic including trucks, cars, and an ambulance on Nakhimovsky Prospect, Moscow.

Judgement: Ticon results for traffic volume calculation during this test have shown 94.6% accuracy.

Flow volume graph showing 10-minute average eastbound NHMV traffic on 04/05/2016, with green line for Ticon data and brown shaded area for detector data, highlighting a calculated curve and video review point at 1896 am/h.