Time headway is a key parameter for describing car-following behavior and microscopic traffic flow characteristics, and it is important for traffic safety analysis, road design, and optimizing intelligent-driving strategies. Existing research offers limited insight into the heterogeneity of time headway under different vehicle types and lane conditions. It is particularly important to investigate how time headway distributions differ across lane–vehicle-type combinations on highways, as these differences can affect safety evaluation and operational performance. This study is based on drone-captured vehicle trajectories from the publicly available HighD dataset. We select 378,751 vehicle–frame trajectory records; these records are used to construct valid follower–leader pairs and derive time headway (THW) samples for distribution fitting. Eight subsets are formed by combining two lane positions (inner vs. outer) and four follower–leader vehicle-type pairs (car–car, car–truck, truck–car, truck–truck). Six candidate distributions (Lognormal, Log-logistic, Burr, Weibull, Gamma, and Logistic) are fitted using maximum likelihood estimation, and their fit is evaluated using Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Anderson–Darling, and Chi-square tests, which are fused via an entropy-weighted composite score for model ranking. Results show pronounced heterogeneity across lane–vehicle-type subsets: Inner-lane samples exhibit smaller and more concentrated time gaps, whereas outer-lane samples show larger mean gaps, stronger dispersion, and heavier upper tails. Overall, Lognormal(3P) is selected as the top-ranked model in 5 of 8 subsets (62.5%), while Burr(4P) (car–truck, outer lane), Gamma(3P) (truck–car, outer lane), and Weibull(3P) (truck–truck, inner lane) are optimal in the remaining subsets. These findings indicate that lane position and vehicle-type pairing materially affect THW distributional characteristics, providing quantitative guidance for lane- and vehicle-aware traffic modeling, safety-oriented assessment, and intelligent-driving strategy design.
Li et al. (Fri,) studied this question.