## 2 Literature Review  
Over the past few years, road safety monitoring has evolved, and a more proactive approach has been adopted. Earlier road safety analysis was conducted using the police crash data report, but there are well-known issues with these kinds of reports. Being a reactive process, it has significant drawbacks like underreported cases, a lack of behavior analysis and is very time-consuming [15; 16]. Therefore, surrogate safety measures have been introduced, and a traffic conflict technique has been developed. In the traffic conflict technique, in a scenario where two or more commuters are approaching one another in time and space, a collision will eventually occur if their movements do not change, referred to as a conflict [17]. Traffic conflict measures are typically used to identify when a traffic event transitions from a typical interaction to a conflict and, ultimately, to a collision [3]. Most (more than 50%) crashes occur at urban intersections due to dangerous driver actions and movements [4]. One of the reasons can be drivers from different directions occupying a single space at a junction, which reduces network capacity, delays drivers and poses a safety concern [7]. The definition of surrogate measures includes not only parameters like Post Encronchment Time (PET), Time to Collision (TTC) or TTC-Integrated, but also traffic characteristics such as traffic volume, delay and speed [6]. By incorporating these additional factors, the definition of surrogate measures becomes more comprehensive and inclusive and considers anything that could potentially lead to conflict on the road as a surrogate measure. The most often used safety indicators, such as Time-to-Collision [18] and Post-Encroachment Time [19], and their modifications only evaluate one aspect of safety [20], i.e., proximity between two road users who may collide. This measurement only accounts for one part of the possible accident severity. The other aspect of safety, the potential repercussions of a hypothetical conflict, has been considered only by a few researchers. The Swedish traffic conflict technique is one of the few techniques that considers both the TTC at the moment where the road user detects the risk and takes evasive action and the speed of the road user at that instant to evaluate the severity of a traffic event [21; 22]. A higher speed with a low TTC value is believed to raise the severity of the potential repercussions, exacerbating the danger. In contrast, the Dutch objective conflict technique for operation and research (DOCTOR) uses a subjective score representing the likelihood of injuries in a collision [23; 24]. The score is determined by objective criteria such as the road user and maneuver type, controlled or uncontrolled situation and specific attributes like the presence of evasive action. Other indicators, like Delta-V and combined risk indices, have also been proposed; however, their application is constrained as they rely on specified assumptions and are only valid in certain circumstances. [PERSON] [17], in a validation study of the Swedish traffic conflict technique, included a subjective measure of conflict danger. The conflicts chosen based on the danger rating showed the strongest association with accidents reported by the police. Human perception of danger is a comprehensive process that is essential for survival and decision-making to lessen the possible harm; it may inspire people to take preventative measures, stay away from dangerous circumstances or participate in protective behaviors. It is crucial to understand how people perceive danger in disciplines like risk assessment or traffic safety engineering. One of the important questions is whether depending on human observers' perception of danger in a traffic event is an appropriate way to determine ground truth or if it is biased. However, some empirical evidence suggests that human judgments are reliable and valid for detecting severity in traffic events.