Applying a joint model of crash count and crash severity to identify road segments with high risk of fatal and serious injury crashes.

Both crash count and severity are thought to quantify crash risk at defined transport network locations (e.g. intersections, a particulate section of highway, etc.). Crash count is a measure of the likelihood of occurring a potential harmful event, whereas crash severity is a measure of the societal impact and harm to the society. As the majority of safety improvement programs are focused on preventing fatal and serious injury crashes, identification of high-risk sites-or blackspots-should ideally account for both severity and frequency of crashes. Past research efforts to incorporate crash severity into the identification of high-risk sites include multivariate crash count models, equivalent property damage only models and two-stage mixed models. These models, however, often require suitable distributional assumptions for computational efficiency, neglect the ordinal nature of crash severity, and are inadequate for capturing unobserved heterogeneity arising from possible correlations between crash counts of different severity levels. These limitations can ultimately lead to inefficient allocation of resources and misidentification of sites with high risk of fatal and serious injury crashes. Moreover, the implication of these models in blackspot identification is an important, unanswered question. While a joint econometric model of crash count and crash severity has the flexibility to account for the limitations mentioned previously, its ability to identify high-risk sites also needs to be examined. This study aims to fill this research gap by employing the joint model for blackspot identification. Using data from state-controlled roads in Queensland, Australia, a new risk score is developed based on predicted crash counts by severity, weighted by the cost ratio of severity levels. This weighted risk score is then used for identifying road segments with high risk of fatal and injury crashes. Results show that the joint model of crash count and crash severity has substantially improved prediction accuracy compared to the traditional count models. The correlation between crash counts of different severity levels captures the unobserved heterogeneity caused by the extra-variation in total crash counts and moderates the parameters in the joint model. In comparison with the traditional approaches, the proposed weighted risk score approach with the joint model of crash count and crash severity leads to the identification of a higher number of fatal and serious injury crashes in the top ranked sites flagged for safety improvements.

[1]  Srinivas Reddy Geedipally,et al.  Analyzing Different Parameterizations of the Varying Dispersion Parameter as a Function of Segment Length , 2009 .

[2]  Simon Washington,et al.  Applying quantile regression for modeling equivalent property damage only crashes to identify accident blackspots. , 2014, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Simon Washington,et al.  Incorporating behavioral variables into crash count prediction by severity: A multivariate multiple risk source approach. , 2019, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Bhagwant Persaud,et al.  Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes approaches for before-after road safety evaluations. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[5]  Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios,et al.  Driving behaviour while self-regulating mobile phone interactions: A human-machine system approach. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Feng Guo,et al.  The Risk of a Safety-Critical Event Associated With Mobile Device Use in Specific Driving Contexts , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

[7]  Nicolas Saunier,et al.  Network screening for large urban road networks: Using GPS data and surrogate measures to model crash frequency and severity. , 2019, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Nima Golshani,et al.  Grouped random parameters bivariate probit analysis of perceived and observed aggressive driving behavior: A driving simulation study , 2017 .

[9]  Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson,et al.  A heterogeneity-in-means count model for evaluating the effects of interchange type on heterogeneous influences of interstate geometrics on crash frequencies , 2014 .

[10]  Wen Cheng,et al.  New Criteria for Evaluating Methods of Identifying Hot Spots , 2008 .

[11]  Naveen Eluru,et al.  A joint econometric framework for modeling crash counts by severity , 2018 .

[12]  Alfonso Montella,et al.  A comparative analysis of hotspot identification methods. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  Maurizio Guida,et al.  A crash-prediction model for multilane roads. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  Fred L Mannering,et al.  A multivariate tobit analysis of highway accident-injury-severity rates. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  John N. Ivan,et al.  Hierarchical Bayesian Estimation of Safety Performance Functions for Two-Lane Highways Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Modeling , 2005 .

[16]  C. Bhat Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model , 2001 .

[17]  P Cairney,et al.  Relationship between Crash Risk and Geometric Characteristics of Rural Highways , 2000 .

[18]  Simon Washington,et al.  Applying fractional split model to examine the effects of roadway geometric and traffic characteristics on speeding behavior , 2018, Traffic injury prevention.

[19]  Chao Wang,et al.  Predicting accident frequency at their severity levels and its application in site ranking using a two-stage mixed multivariate model. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Peter T. Savolainen,et al.  Driver Injury Severity Resulting from Single-Vehicle Crashes along Horizontal Curves on Rural Two-Lane Highways , 2009 .

[21]  Simon Washington,et al.  Bayesian Latent Class Safety Performance Function for Identifying Motor Vehicle Crash Black Spots , 2016 .

[22]  Andy H. Lee,et al.  Effectiveness of Sealed Shoulders and Audible Edge Lines in Western Australia , 2011, Traffic injury prevention.

[23]  R. Tay Prioritising road safety initiatives: fatality versus social cost. , 2002, Applied health economics and health policy.

[24]  Nalini Ravishanker,et al.  Selecting exposure measures in crash rate prediction for two-lane highway segments. , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  Fred L Mannering,et al.  A note on modeling vehicle accident frequencies with random-parameters count models. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[26]  Amir Pooyan Afghari Detecting motor vehicle crash blackspots based on their underlying behavioural, engineering, and spatial causes , 2019 .

[27]  Jonathan Aguero-Valverde,et al.  Full Bayes Poisson gamma, Poisson lognormal, and zero inflated random effects models: Comparing the precision of crash frequency estimates. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[28]  Murat K. Munkin,et al.  Simulated maximum likelihood estimation of multivariate mixed‐Poisson regression models, with application , 1999 .

[29]  Simon Washington,et al.  A comprehensive joint econometric model of motor vehicle crashes arising from multiple sources of risk , 2018 .

[30]  Ezra Hauer,et al.  The Art of Regression Modeling in Road Safety , 2014 .

[31]  Geni Bahar,et al.  Crash Costs for Highway Safety Analysis , 2018 .

[32]  Wen Cheng,et al.  Experimental evaluation of hotspot identification methods. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[33]  Xuedong Yan,et al.  Modeling the Equivalent Property Damage Only Crash Rate for Road Segments Using the Hurdle Regression Framework , 2016 .

[34]  Paul P Jovanis,et al.  Bayesian Multivariate Poisson Lognormal Models for Crash Severity Modeling and Site Ranking , 2009 .

[35]  Satish V. Ukkusuri,et al.  How to Incorporate Accident Severity and Vehicle Occupancy into the Hot Spot Identification Process? , 2009 .

[36]  Simon Washington,et al.  "Mate! I'm running 10 min late": An investigation into the self-regulation of mobile phone tasks while driving. , 2019, Accident Analysis and Prevention.