Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
This paper identifies nine characteristics of road safety problems that are all in principle amenable to numerical measurement. The nine
characteristics identified are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Magnitude
Severity
Externality
Inequity
Complexity
Spatial dispersion
Temporal stability
Perceived urgency
Amenability to treatment
The purpose of identifying these dimensions and of trying to measure them is to provide a basis for selecting problems for treatment by means
of safety programmes. Selecting problems for treatment usually cannot be done on the basis of a single dimension, as it is the mix of characteristics
that determine the prospects for successfully treating a problem. It is proposed that amenability to treatment is a function of complexity, perceived
urgency and the availability of cost-effective treatments. Speed and speeding is used as an example of a road safety problem to illustrate how the
various dimensions can be measured.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Road safety problem; Dimension; Numerical measurement; Selection for treatment
1. Introduction
Road safety has been greatly improved in most highly
motorised countries during the past 3035 years. Yet, no country
is satisfied with its road safety record, and a number of wellknown road safety problems persist. Speeding, for example, was
regarded as a major problem 35 years ago and remains so today.
The high accident rates of young drivers also seem to defy most
attempts at reducing them. Why are some road safety problems
more difficult to solve than others? Which are the characteristics of road safety problems that influence their amenability to
treatment? This paper will try to shed light on these questions
0001-4575/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2008.01.004
Magnitude
Severity
Externality
Inequity
Complexity
Spatial dispersion
Temporal stability
Perceived urgency
Amenability to treatment
All these dimensions are to some extent amenable to numerical measurement and comparative analyses. Short definitions of
each dimension and proposals for their measurement are given
in Table 1. Key points are elaborated below.
1201
PE(RR 1)
(PE(RR 1)) + 1
(1)
0.1(3 1)
= 0.167
(0.1(3 1)) + 1
2.1. Magnitude
The magnitude of a road safety problem is the size of the contribution it makes to accidents. The contribution a certain risk
factor makes to accidents is indicated by the risk attributable to it.
In epidemiology (Rothman and Greenland, 1998), several measures of attributable risk have been developed. For the purpose
of comparing the magnitude of different road safety problems,
population attributable risk is perhaps the best indicator. The
term population should not be taken literally; it refers to the
contribution a factor makes to the total number of cases (i.e. all
accidents) rather than a subset of cases. Population attributable
Fig. 1. Determining the risk attributable to speeding by way of shifting the speed
distribution.
1202
Table 1
Definitions of dimensions of road safety problems and numerical indicators of the problems
Dimension of problem
Definition
Numerical indicator
1. Magnitude
2. Severity
3. Externality
4. Inequity
5. Complexity
6. Spatial dispersion
7. Temporal stability
8. Perceived urgency
9. Amenability to treatment
limit of 80 km/h:
Fatality risk attributable to speeding = 1
74.3
78.5
4.5
= 1 0.781 = 0.219
If speeding was eliminated, the number of fatalities could be
reduced by about 22%. This is the risk attributable to speeding. The 95% confidence interval for the exponent is (4.1, 4.9).
To estimate the contribution of speeding to serious and slight
injuries, the exponent should be 3.0 (2.2, 3.8) and 1.5 (1.0, 2.0),
respectively, leading to estimates of 0.152 for serious injuries
and 0.079 for slight injuries.
2.2. Severity
It is widely agreed that fatalities are the most serious impact
of road safety problems, serious injuries the second most serious impact and pure property damage the least serious impact of
road safety problems. Hence, a road safety problem is severe if
it makes a greater contribution to fatalities and serious injuries
than the contribution it makes to slight injuries or property
damage.
There are many ways to assess the severity of a road safety
problem. An approach which employs the notion of attributable
risk is to compare estimates of attributable risk across levels
of injury severity. Thus, the following estimates of the risks
attributable to speeding have been developed for Norway for the
years 2004 and 2005, based on data about speed and injuries for
those years:
0.239
0.173
0.093
1203
Table 2
Injured road users in police reported accidents in Norway 19982005 by combination of groups involved
Injured as occupant of
Counterpart in accident
Truck-trailer
Truck
Bus
Van
Car
Large MC
Truck-trailer
Truck
Bus
Van
Car
Large MC
Small MC
Moped
Cycle
Pedestrian
Other
73
80
120
115
1789
41
10
23
42
54
17
32
102
103
214
2736
84
14
68
144
220
54
10
37
63
80
1210
46
9
47
105
318
14
5
40
43
271
2815
128
47
150
286
409
20
96
197
290
1,038
31,355
1,926
474
2,350
4,388
5,635
158
0
3
1
3
203
107
4
17
42
61
5
Total
2364
3771
1939
4214
47,907
446
table shows the number of persons who were injured in accidents in which the counterpart was a truck-trailer. Seventy-three
truck-trailer occupants were injured in accidents in which the
other party involved was also a truck-trailer. Ninety-six truck
occupants were injured in accidents in which the truck-trailer
crashed with a car. This can be interpreted as a risk imposed
by cars on truck-trailer occupants. The first column of Table 2
shows that, for example, 1789 car occupants were injured in accidents in which the other party was a truck-trailer. In total, 2364
road users were injured in accidents in which truck-trailers were
involved, of which 2291 were not occupants of the truck-trailer.
Hence, the external risk imposed by truck-trailers accounts for
2291 injured road users, whereas the risk other road users impose
on occupants of truck-trailers (first row of Table 2) accounts
for only 149 injured occupants. The involvement of a trucktrailer in an accident therefore represents a large net external
risk: the number of injuries to other groups of road users in accidents involving truck-trailers is much greater than the number
of injuries to truck-trailer occupants. The ratio of the number
of injuries to other groups of road users (2291) to the number of injuries to truck-trailer occupants (149) may serve as a
numerical index of the external risk created by truck-trailers
(2291/149 = 15.38, i.e. 15 times as many injuries to others as the
injuries others impose on truck-trailer occupants).
By definition, the sum of the risks imposed by one group
of road users upon other groups and the risks inflicted on a
certain group of road users by all other groups is zero. That is,
risks exported (external risks) equal risks imported (inflicted
by other groups). Risks that only involve one group of road
users, such as injuries to truck-trailer occupants in accidents that
involve only truck-trailers (either collisions or single-vehicle
accidents) can be regarded as internal. Table 3 shows the net
externality contributed by various groups of road users at various levels of accident injury severity. Table 3 was derived from
a set of tables similar to Table 2. It is seen that truck-trailers and
other heavy vehicles (trucks, buses, vans) represent a significant
external risk and that there is a distinct severity gradient to the
external risk.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the number of external
injuries is higher at lower speed limits than at higher speed lim-
Small MC
Moped
Cycle
Pedestrian
1
0
0
0
31
5
14
26
12
13
0
0
2
7
4
59
26
21
139
82
147
2
2
2
3
3
59
25
6
36
254
167
4
0
1
8
8
78
25
5
51
58
37
2
102
489
561
273
Other
None
Total
3
22
36
35
543
43
10
46
83
188
31
533
481
627
954
19,859
2,216
340
1,036
644
185
414
755
967
1,301
2,725
60,737
4,672
954
3,989
6,140
7,434
721
1040
27,289
90,395
1204
Table 3
Net external injuries imposed by various groups of road users in Norway (19982005) by speed limit and injury severity
Ratio of injuries imposed on other groups of road users (external) to
injuries imposed by other groups of road users (imposed) by speed limit,
injury severity and group of road user
Speed limit of 3050 km/h
Truck-trailer
Truck
Bus
Van
Car
Large MC
Small MC
Moped
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Other
Total
Slight
Serious
Fatal
Slight
Serious
Fatal
Slight
Serious
Fatal
29.57
13.44
3.14
3.18
3.05
0.12
0.14
0.11
0.05
0.04
4.38
49.00
28.50
8.33
7.09
7.03
0.15
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.01
10.00
19.00
32.00
23.00
8.00
5.29
0.05
0.00
0.11
0.11
0.03
7.50
16.00
9.89
1.53
2.48
0.77
0.20
0.11
0.06
0.05
0.08
3.71
20.71
19.00
5.67
2.63
1.44
0.03
0.00
0.11
0.07
0.01
8.50
32.33
13.00
35.00
2.86
0.76
0.04
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.25
9.66
6.14
2.16
1.64
0.45
0.23
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.17
3.67
27.46
6.81
3.74
2.00
0.63
0.05
0.29
0.13
0.08
0.01
3.50
63.80
23.40
12.71
3.74
0.28
0.02
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
ing percentage for heavy vehicles was 12.5%. The fatality risk
attributable to the greater mass of heavy vehicles is therefore
(12.52.2)/12.5 = 0.824. The effects of speed were determined
analogously by comparing the proportion of fatalities or
serious injuries between speed limits, keeping vehicle mass
constant.
If injury outcomes in all pedestrian crashes were identical to
those in which pedestrians are struck by two-wheelers at a speed
limit of 3050 km/h, the number of killed pedestrians could be
reduced from 196 to 93. Eliminating the contribution of large
mass would account for a reduction of 41 fatalities, eliminating
unsafe speeds would account for a reduction of 62 fatalities. A
further reduction from 93 to 88 fatalities would be possible if
all vehicles had the same rate of striking pedestrians as light
vehicles (cars and vans). While pedestrians would still have a
higher fatality rate than car occupants, the difference would be
greatly reduced, all else equal.
2.5. Complexity
The complexity of a road safety problem depends on whether
it is attributable to a single risk factor or to a multiplicity of risk
factors that each makes a small contribution and interact in ways
that are poorly understood and difficult to measure.
The more fragmented the contributions of a set of risk factors
is, the more complex is a problem, since one then has to know the
effects of many risk factors to fully account for the problem, and
since interventions targeted at a specific risk factor are likely to
make only a small contribution towards reducing risk. To show
how to assess complexity, an example based on an analysis of
the relationship between speed and road safety (Taylor et al.,
2002) will be used. The final version of the model fitted was of
the form:
Accidents = 3.152 107 AADT0.7282 L1.039 V 2.431 Gi
exp(0.1213DS+0.2865DX)
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
1.30
0.57
0.20
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.05
3.61
1.43
0.66
0.60
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.25
0.20
Car
Van
Bus
Pedestrian
Truck
Truck-trailer
Large MC
Bicycle
Moped
Other
Small MC
76.4
8.3
7.0
2.3
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.1
3.61
1.43
0.66
25.61
4.29
6.76
44.32
19.23
15.57
12.23
47.97
1.30
0.57
0.20
8.79
1.39
1.15
17.52
11.18
13.22
4.62
19.04
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.51
0.11
0.10
0.66
1.03
1.07
0.22
1.15
Table 4
Observed fatality and injury rates in Norway and hypothetical rates consistent with the difference principle proposed by John Rawls
1205
1206
Table 5
Changes in the number of pedestrian injuries if all pedestrian were struck by vehicles of low mass, at low speed limits and only by vehicles that have the lowest rate of striking pedestrians per km of travel
Pedestrian injuries by speed limit
Heavy vehicle
Fatal
Serious
Slight
Total
N
Light vehicle
Fatal
Serious
Slight
Total
N
Two-wheeler
Fatal
Serious
Slight
Total
N
6070 km/h
80100 km/h
Total
Current number
0.125
0.130
0.745
0.105
0.289
0.605
0.345
0.276
0.379
0.145
0.166
0.689
41
47
195
1.000
216
1.000
38
1.000
29
1.000
283
283
0.029
0.130
0.841
0.083
0.234
0.683
0.180
0.265
0.555
0.046 152
0.153 506
0.801 2647
1.000
2646
1.000
448
1.000
211
1.000 3305
3305
0.022
0.124
0.854
0.000
0.385
0.615
0.000
0.250
0.750
0.019
0.154
0.827
3
25
134
1.000
137
1.000
13
1.000
12
1.000
162
162
Mass
22
1
23
Speed
6
10
16
Effects of changes
in accident rate
Final expected
number
13
36
234
5
14
90
8
22
144
283
19
17
36
56
75
131
77
414
2814
174
0
0
0
3305
0
0
0
0
5
5
3
20
139
162
77
414
2814
3305
1
4
16
2
16
113
131
3050 km/h
1207
Table 6
Effects of various variables on the number of accidents
Explanatory variables
Constant term
AADT
Length (km)
Speed (miles/h)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Sharp curves per km
Four leg junctions per km
Mean value
5990
3
44.2
1
1
1
0.50
0.14
Coefficient
3.15E-07
0.7282
1.039
2.431
1
0.558
0.391
0.285
0.1213
0.2865
0.6
0.4
Fig. 2. Expected number of injury accidents per kilometre of road for a national road in Norway. High-risk sections marked in grey.
1208
Table 7
Attitudes to road safety policy interventions in Norway
Policy intervention
Oppose
No opinion
Total
79
90
78
73
40
46
41
32
20
10
20
25
60
52
54
66
1
0
2
2
0
2
5
2
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Fig. 3. Relationship between support for stronger policy interventions and risk
attributable to various road safety problems in Norway.
1209
1210
Ross, H.L., Klette, H., 1995. Abandonment of mandatory jail for impaired drivers
in Norway and Sweden. Accid. Anal. Prev. 27, 151157.
Rothman, K., Greenland, S., 1998. Modern Epidemiology, second ed. Lippincott
Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA.
Sagberg, F., Bjrnskau, T., 2004. Sovning bak rattet: Medvirkende faktorer,
omfang og konsekvenser. Rapport 728. Transportkonomisk institutt, Oslo.
Sakshaug, K. 1986. Fartsgrenseunderskelsen-85. Detaljerte resultater fra fartsdelen og ulykkesdelen. Notat 535/86 og 536/86. SINTEF, Avdeling for
samferdselsteknikk, Trondheim.
Taylor, M.C., Baruya, A., Kennedy, J.V., 2002. The relationship between speed
and accidents on rural single-carriageway roads. TRL Report TRL511.
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.