International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Evaluating the Safety Risk of Rural Roadsides Using
a Bayesian Network Method
Tianpei Tang 1,2, * , Senlai Zhu 1, * , Yuntao Guo 3 , Xizhao Zhou 2 and Yang Cao 1
1 School of Transportation and Civil Engineering, Nantong University, Nantong 226019, China;
caoyangnt@ntu.edu.cn
2 Business School, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China;
xizhaozhou@163.com
3 Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; guo187@purdue.edu
* Correspondence: tangtianpei@ntu.edu.cn (T.T.); zhusenlai@ntu.edu.cn (S.Z.)




Received: 25 February 2019; Accepted: 29 March 2019; Published: 1 April 2019


Abstract: Evaluating the safety risk of rural roadsides is critical for achieving reasonable allocation of
a limited budget and avoiding excessive installation of safety facilities. To assess the safety risk of rural
roadsides when the crash data are unavailable or missing, this study proposed a Bayesian Network
(BN) method that uses the experts’ judgments on the conditional probability of different safety
risk factors to evaluate the safety risk of rural roadsides. Eight factors were considered, including
seven factors identified in the literature and a new factor named access point density. To validate
the effectiveness of the proposed method, a case study was conducted using 19.42 km long road
networks in the rural area of Nantong, China. By comparing the results of the proposed method and
run-off-road (ROR) crash data from 2015–2016 in the study area, the road segments with higher safety
risk levels identified by the proposed method were found to be statistically significantly correlated
with higher crash severity based on the crash data. In addition, by comparing the respective results
evaluated by eight factors and seven factors (a new factor removed), we also found that access point
density significantly contributed to the safety risk of rural roadsides. These results show that the
proposed method can be considered as a low-cost solution to evaluating the safety risk of rural
roadsides with relatively high accuracy, especially for areas with large rural road networks and
incomplete ROR crash data due to budget limitation, human errors, negligence, or inconsistent
crash recordings.

Keywords: traffic safety; Bayesian Network; run-off-road; roadside features; rural roads

1. Introduction
Road safety is one of the most important tasks of traffic engineers and is still a big issue for the
whole world. On average, there are approximately 1.2 million fatalities and five million injuries in road
crashes every year (WHO, 2015). According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) database,
roadway departure (RwD) crashes involving run-off-road (ROR) and cross-median/centerline head-on
collisions account for approximately 56% of all types of traffic crashes and represent one of the more
severe types of crashes [1]. Some recent studies show that ROR crashes on rural roads account for 80%
of all ROR fatalities, and around 90% of these crashes occurred on rural two-lane roads [2]. To prevent
ROR crashes or reduce the safety risk of rural roadsides, there is a critical need to identify key factors
that affect and evaluate roadside safety risk. Given that the budget for rural road safety management
is often limited, especially in developing countries, it is necessary to evaluate and classify the safety
risk levels of rural roadsides to prioritize budget allocation and possible safety actions.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166; doi:10.3390/ijerph16071166 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 2 of 17

Although rural road pavement and traffic conditions are steadily improving, and their traffic
volume and average operating speed are increasing as the cities expand, the safety facilities of rural
roads, such as roadside safety countermeasures, are inadequate and sometimes even missing compared
to urban roads, which contributes to the growing number of ROR crashes in recent years [1–3].
To address this, some recent studies proposed different methods to evaluate the rural roadside safety
risk by analyzing a variety of ROR crash data [4–14]. However, a significant amount data of ROR
crashes used in these methods (e.g., crash causation, crash type, crash location, crash severity, traffic
condition, etc.) are not available or missing in many countries’ Department of Transportation (DOT)
databases (e.g., China) due to human errors, negligence, or lack of training in people in charge of crash
recordings. The absence of ROR crash data makes it even more difficult to evaluate the rural roadside
safety risk. In addition, some of the safety risk factors for rural roadsides were not included in previous
studies, which may not provide a complete picture of rural roadside safety risk. Thus, the relationship
obtained in previous studies between the factors and safety risk is possibly also biased [15–24].
To evaluate the safety risk of rural roadsides for areas with incomplete ROR crash data, this paper
proposes a Bayesian Network (BN) based method to evaluate the rural roadside safety risk based on
the estimated probability of ROR crash using experts’ judgment. To provide a relatively complete
picture of rural roadside safety risk, seven safety risk factors are considered based on their frequency
and importance in the literature. A new factor named access point density is introduced to capture
some roadside features that were not included in previous studies and may have significant impacts
on the frequency and severity of ROR crashes. Then, a BN model is constructed to evaluate the safety
risk of rural roadsides and classify them in one of the five safety risk levels.
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed methods, a case study was conducted using a rural
area (6 km2 ) with 19.42 km roads in Nantong, China. Nantong is a prefecture-level city in Eastern
China, and its road system contains mainly rural roads (i.e., 80.5% of its 14,694 km roads is classified
as rural roads) [3].
In summary, the contributions of this paper are:
(1) A Bayesian Network-based method to evaluate the safety risk of rural roadsides for areas with
incomplete ROR crash data is proposed.
(2) Access point density is introduced as a relatively new risk factor to evaluate the safety risk
of rural roadsides, and the results demonstrated that it has a significant impact on the safety risk of
rural roadsides.
(3) This proposed method can be applied to assess the safety risk of road segments or intersections
in the absence of ROR crash data as long as safety risk factors for road segments or intersections
are re-identified.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, literature related to rural roadside
safety is reviewed. In Section 3, a safety risk evaluation method for rural roadsides is developed based
on a BN method, and the safety risk factors are discussed. Then, a case study and discussions are
proposed in Section 4. Finally, some conclusions are provided in the last section.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Identification of Safety Risk Factors

The premise of evaluating the safety risk is to understand and identify safety risk factors that
affect the ROR crashes. Stonex (1960) first proposed that three key safety risk factors, including the
steep roadside slopes, deep ditches, and non-traversable obstacles on the roadsides, contributed to
the ROR crashes severity [15]. Since then, numerous researchers have investigated the safety risk
factors associated with various ROR crashes. Field study and mathematical statistical analysis are the
two most commonly used methods to identify these safety risk factors.
Some studies used a field study and experimental data analysis method to study the impact of
the factors related to roadside safety risk. Mclaughlin et al. conducted a 100 car naturalistic driving
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 3 of 17

study to collect the experimental data and revealed that roadside geometric features contributed to
the probability of ROR events. Specifically, ROR crashes that occurred on road curves accounted for
30% of all ROR events [16]. Lord et al. conducted site visits to study the ROR crashes on two-way
two-lane rural roads in the state of Texas and identified three types of contributing factors, including
road geometric design features (i.e., roadside design, shoulder width and type, horizontal curvature,
and traffic volume), human factors, and other factors [2]. Fitzpatrick et al. studied the impact of
clear zone width and roadside vegetation on driver behaviors by a field data collection. The results
demonstrated that drivers had a tendency to drive more closely to the shoulder edge [17]. Another
study conducted by the Iowa DOT demonstrated that a 38% reduction in ROR crashes could be
achieved after removing/relocating/shielding hazardous objects in the clear zone area by a field study
and experimental data analysis [18].
To deeply understand the relationship between the factors and the ROR crash severity,
some researchers quantified the relationship using logit models and conditional probability models.
Lee and Mannering identified the significant contributing factors to the ROR crashes severity using
zero-inflated models and nested logit models. They indicated that reducing the number of roadside
trees, avoiding cut side slopes, and increasing the distance between shoulder edge and hazardous
objects (e.g., trees and utility poles) could reduce the ROR crashes severity [19]. Holdridge et al.
developed multivariate nested logit models to identify the most common factors contributing to the
severity of fixed-object crashes. The study results highlighted the main factors—the existence of bridge
rails, leading ends of guardrails, and wooden poles along the roadsides—that increased the likelihood
of severe crashes [20]. Eustace et al. developed an approach to identify the most common factors
contributing to ROR events based on generalized ordered logit regression. The authors indicated that
road geometric features (e.g., curves), roadway features (e.g., grade), driver conditions, and gender
were the key factors contributing to severe ROR crashes [21]. Based on a sufficient number of ROR
crash data collected on freeway roads in Portugal, Roque et al. used the multinomial and mixed logit
regression models and identified two roadside elements consisting of slops and horizontal curves
that have more significant impacts on fatal ROR crashes [22]. Liu and Subramanian identified the
factors contributing to single vehicle ROR crashes—horizontal road alignment, roadway geometric
features, speed limit, and lighting conditions—by logistic regression based on the crash data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System [23]. Roque and Jalayer developed a hazard-based duration model
to understand the distance traveled by errant vehicles in ROR crashes and their associated factors.
Based on annual ROR crashes data, the extent severity was related to roadway and roadside geometric
design features, including lane width and clear zones [24].
Several studies developed evaluation methods based on roadside safety risk factors to identify
the main factors impacting the roadside safety risk, including horizontal curve radius, side slop, side
slope height, clear zone width, longitudinal grade, distance between non-traversable obstacles and
roadway edge, roadside objects density, and sight distance, among others [4–14].
In addition, few studies had the perceived access point density as a key factor contributing to
ROR crashes. Results from previous studies showed that access point density was positively correlated
with crash frequency and severity [25,26]. Therefore, this paper added access point density to the set
of factors and studied its impact on rural roadside safety risk.

2.2. Evaluation Methods for Safety Risk

In an attempt to determine which roadside safety countermeasure to adopt, many studies
started with evaluating the safety risk of rural roadsides. Some researchers developed a multi-index
comprehensive evaluation model to assess the roadside safety risk. Zegeer et al. proposed a visual and
subjective measure, which is a roadside hazard rating (RHR) system, to quantify the roadside hazard
level on a scale from one to seven (one being the best) [4]. You et al. proposed a roadside dangerous
index based on the probability of run-off-road, exposure of the vehicle to hazardous roadside, and risk
severity to evaluate roadside safety. [5]. Loprencipe et al. proposed a numeric index (hazard index)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 4 of 17

to quantify the overall risk assessment of roadsides based on general characteristics of the road and
defined six classes of roadside safety risk [6]. Several studies evaluated the roadside safety risk using
mathematical statistical analysis. Li et al. developed a risk assessment model based on the grey cluster
method [7]. Pardillo-Mayora et al. developed a roadside hazardousness index (RHI) for two-lane roads
to assess the RwD crash severity levels using cluster analysis [8]. Esawey and Sayed proposed a safety
performance function (SPF) to evaluate the safety risk related to utility pole crashes using negative
binomial regression [9]. Park and Abdel-Aty assessed the safety effectiveness of rural roadsides by
estimating crash modification factors (CMFs) using the cross-sectional method based on the crash data
in Florida [10].
In some literature, some of them used a fuzzy synthetic method. Wei and Zhang established the
evaluation index system and developed a set pair analysis model (SPAM) for roadside risk rating
assessment [11]. Fang et al. presented an assessment model of roadside environment objective safety
based on the probability of run-into-roadside and the roadside objective characteristics using fuzzy
judgment [12]. The others used the probability theory. Ayati et al. used an evidential reasoning (ER)
method to define a roadside hazard severity indicator and developed crash severity prediction models
to evaluate the roadside hazard severity levels [13]. Jalayer and Zhou obtained ROR crash data for
a five year time period (2009–2013) from Illinois DOT and used reliability analysis to gauge the RHRs
for rural two-lane roads [14]. Table 1 summarizes the main evaluation methods for roadside safety risk
in previous studies.

Table 1. Studies on evaluation methods for roadside safety risk.

Method Type Methods References

Multi-index comprehensive
evaluation method
Mathematical
statistical analysis
Fuzzy synthetic method
Probability theory
Roadside hazard rating (RHR) system
A roadside dangerous index
Hazard index
Grey cluster model
Cluster analysis
Negative binomial regression
Cross-sectional method
A set pair analysis model
Fuzzy judgment
Evidential reasoning method
Reliability analysis
Zegeer et al. (1987) [4]
You et al. (2010) [5]
Loprencipe et al. (2018) [6]
Li, Ma and Wang (2009) [7]
Pardillo-Mayora et al. (2010) [8]
Esawey and Sayed (2012) [9]
Park and Abdel-Aty (2015) [10]
Wei and Zhang (2011) [11]
Fang et al. (2013) [12]
Ayati et al. (2012) [13]
Jalayer and Zhou (2016) [14]

Apart from the aforementioned methods, the Bayesian Network has been used in traffic safety
evaluation domains. Several studies used BN to assess traffic safety, traffic accidents, and traffic
accident injury severity [27–29]. Some other studies identified the accident black spots and predicted
real-time crashes using a BN method [30,31]. However, few studies used BN to assess rural roadside
safety risk. Additionally, some studies investigated the application of mathematical statistical analysis,
probability theory, and fuzzy synthetic method to analyze the traffic accidents. Chen et al. used mixed
logit models to analyze the hourly crash likelihood of highway segments and investigate the injury
severities of truck drivers in single-and multi-vehicle accidents on rural highways [32,33]. Ma et al.
developed multivariate space-time models to jointly analyze crash frequency by injury severity levels in
fine temporal scale [34]. Wen et al. studied crash frequency on freeway segments using a Poisson-based
count regression with consideration of the spatial effects [35]. Shi et al. proposed a cask evaluation
model based on fuzzy and cask theory to assess safety in Chinese rural roads [36].
To sum up, the methodology process of evaluating roadside safety performance includes the
multi-index comprehensive evaluation method, the mathematical statistical analysis, the fuzzy
synthetic method, and the probability theory. The data of ROR crash frequency and severity are
usually used to characterize the extent of safety risk. This means that the effectiveness and practicality
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 5 of 17

of these methods are entirely dependent on the data quality of the ROR crash. In reality, many types of
ROR crash data are not available or missing in many cases. The study proposes a BN-based method
to address this issue. The studied results demonstrate that the proposed approach based on BN has
an ability to effectively evaluate the safety risk of rural roadsides in the absence of ROR crash data.

3.
Int.Methods
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5 of 17

3.1. BN-Based Evaluation Method

The data for ROR crashes on rural rural roads
roads are
are insufficient
insufficient and difficult
difficult to obtain
obtain in
in many
many countries.
countries.
In the
the absence
absenceof ofROR
RORcrash
crashdata,
data,it itis is
difficult to to
difficult develop
developa road safety
a road riskrisk
safety assessment method.
assessment In this
method. In
section, we propose a Bayesian Network-based method to assess and classify
this section, we propose a Bayesian Network-based method to assess and classify the rural roadsidethe rural roadside safety
risk based
safety risk on the on
based estimated probability
the estimated of RORofcrashes.
probability ROR crashes.
Due to to advantages
advantagesincluding
includingbi-directional
bi-directional induction,
induction, incorporation
incorporation of missing
of missing variables,
variables, and
and probabilistic inference, BN has gained widespread attention as
probabilistic inference, BN has gained widespread attention as a method for risk/reliabilitya method for risk/reliability
assessment in in fields
fields ofofindustrial
industrialengineering,
engineering,information
information technology,
technology, and
and social
social science
science [37–42].
[37–42]. In
In the traffic safety domain, many studies have used BN to analyze, assess, and predict
the traffic safety domain, many studies have used BN to analyze, assess, and predict traffic safety risk traffic safety
risk
and and traffic
traffic accidents
accidents [27–31].
[27–31].
To
To evaluate
evaluate thethe rural
rural roadside
roadsidesafetysafetyrisk,
risk,the
theproposed
proposedBN BNmodel
modelisisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure1.1.

𝐵𝑖 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖)

𝑃 𝐸𝑖1 𝐵𝑖 𝑃 𝐸𝑖2 𝐵𝑖 𝑃 𝐸𝑖 𝐵𝑖

𝐸𝑖1 𝐸𝑖2 … 𝐸𝑖

𝐸 𝑖 𝑒𝑛 𝑒 𝐸 𝑖 𝑒𝑛 𝑒 𝐸 𝑖 𝑒𝑛 𝑒

Figure 1.
Figure A Bayesian
1. A Bayesian Network
Network (BN)
(BN) model
model in
in decision
decision factor-i.
factor-𝑖.

The proposed BN model is composed of parent variable Bi and child variable Eij . Variable Bi
The proposed BN model is composed of parent variable 𝐵𝑖 and child variable 𝐸𝑖𝑗 . Variable 𝐵𝑖
represents the decision factor-i (i = 1, 2, · · · , k, where k is the number of decision factors). Variable Bi
represents the decision factor-𝑖 (𝑖 = 1,2, ⋯ , 𝑘, where 𝑘 is the number of decision factors). Variable
is aggregated to the objective variable R, which represents the rural roadside safety risk. To ensure
𝐵𝑖 is aggregated to the objective variable 𝑅, which represents the rural roadside safety risk. To ensure
relative objectivity and reliability of the experts’ judgment, some experts are invited and divided into
relative objectivity and reliability of the experts’ judgment, some experts are invited and divided into
n expert panels. Variable Eij represents the expert panel-j (j = 1, 2, · · · , n, where j is the number of
𝑛 expert panels. Variable 𝐸𝑖𝑗 represents the expert panel-𝑗 (𝑗 = 1,2, ⋯ , 𝑛, where 𝑗 is the number of
expert panels), and the evidence judged by the expert panels is added into the BN model. A set of
expert panels), and the evidence judged by the expert panels is added into the BN model. A set of
directed edges connect the parent variables and child variables.
directed edges connect the parent variables and child variables.
In this study, the safety risk in the respective decision factors is represented by the
In this study, the safety risk in the respective decision factors is represented by the probabilities
probabilities that a road segment falls in Hi (high safety risk category) in the respective decision
that a road segment falls in 𝐻𝑖 (high safety risk category) in the respective decision factors. These
factors. These probabilities are calculated using BN based on the experts’ knowledge and
probabilities are calculated using BN based on the experts’ knowledge and experience. 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖)
experience. P( Bi = Hi ) denotes the probabilities that a road segment falls in Hi in decision factor-i.
denotes the probabilities that a road segment falls in 𝐻𝑖 in decision factor-𝑖. Each 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖) is
Each P( Bi = Hi ) is calculated and updated using evidence judged by different expert panels.
calculated and updated using evidence judged by different expert panels.
In the BN model, each variable has a finite set of mutually exclusive states. The parent variable Bi
In the BN model, each variable has a finite set of mutually exclusive states. The parent variable
indicates the situation that a road segment falls in Hi (high safety risk category) or Lo (low safety risk
𝐵𝑖 indicates the situation that a road segment falls in 𝐻𝑖 (high safety risk category) or 𝐿𝑜 (low safety
category) in decision factor-i. The child variable Eij indicates the situation that a road segment falls
risk category) in decision factor-𝑖. The child variable 𝐸 indicates the situation that a road segment
in a decision criterion, such as e1 , e2 , · · · , em (where m is𝑖𝑗the number of decision criterion in decision
falls in a decision criterion, such as 𝑒1 , 𝑒2 , ⋯ , 𝑒𝑚 (where 𝑚 is the number of decision criterion in
factor-i), according to the judgment of different expert panels. A system of decision criteria is formed
decision factor- 𝑖), according to the judgment of different expert panels. A system of decision criteria
for each expert panel before their judgment to ensure the consistency of the decision criteria. Different
is formed for each expert panel before their judgment to ensure the consistency of the decision
expert panels have different decision criteria, and these uncertainties can be adequately handled by
criteria. Different expert panels have different decision criteria, and these uncertainties can be
the BN model.
adequately handled by the BN model. 

For each Eij with Bi , there is attached a conditional probability table P Eij  Bi . If Bi has no parents,
For each 𝐸𝑖𝑗 with 𝐵𝑖 , there is attached a conditional probability table 𝑃(𝐸𝑖𝑗 |𝐵𝑖 ). If 𝐵𝑖 has no
the table converts to unconditional probabilities P( Bi ). The interest of our attention is the updated
parents, the table converts to unconditional probabilities 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 ). The interest of our attention is the
updated 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 ), not the prior 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 ), thus we assume that 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖) = (𝐵𝑖 = 𝐿𝑜) = 1/2. Evaluating
𝑃(𝐸𝑖𝑗 |𝐵𝑖 ) is difficult for the experts because variable 𝐸𝑖𝑗 has a different number of states.
Nevertheless, 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 |𝐸𝑖𝑗 ) can be obtained easily because variable 𝐵𝑖 has only two states of 𝐻𝑖 or 𝐿𝑜.
Therefore, we can calculate 𝑃(𝐸𝑖𝑗 |𝐵𝑖 ) using Bayesian theorem with 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 |𝐸𝑖𝑗 ), which are evaluated
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 6 of 17



P( Bi ), not the prior P( Bi ), thus we assume that P( Bi = Hi ) = ( Bi = Lo ) = 1/2. Evaluating P Eij  Bi


is difficult for the experts because variable Eij has a different number of states. Nevertheless, P Bi  Eij
can be obtained easily because variable Bi has only two states of Hi or Lo. Therefore, we can calculate



P Eij  Bi using Bayesian theorem with P Bi  Eij , which are evaluated by experts. Note that evaluating



P Bi  Eij as point values is difficult for experts, thus P Bi  Eij are evaluated as band values, and the


medians of the band values are employed as the representative values to calculate P Bi  Eij , as shown
in Table 2. If the median of the band value is not appropriate according to the judgment of experts,


experts can replace an appropriate one for the median. In summary, P Eij  Bi can be calculated
using Equation (1):


P( Bi | Eij ) P( Eij )
P Eij  Bi = P( Bi )
P( Bi | Eij ) P( Eij )
= (1)
P( Bi | Eij =e1 ) P( Eij =e1 )+···+ P( Bi | Eij =em ) P( Eij =em )
P( Bi | Eij ) P( Eij )
=
∑m
k =1 P ( Bi | Eij = ek ) P ( Eij = ek )

Table 2. Band values for experts’ evaluations.

Degree of Safety Risk P(Bi = Hi) P(Bi = Lo)

Very significant 0.8–1.0 (0.9) 0.0–0.2 (0.1)
Significant 0.6–0.8 (0.7) 0.2–0.4 (0.3)
Potentially significant 0.4–0.6 (0.5) 0.4–0.6 (0.5)
Low significant 0.2–0.4 (0.3) 0.6–0.8 (0.7)
Very low significant 0.0–0.2 (0.1) 0.8–1.0 (0.9)

Refer to P( Bi = Hi ) = ( Bi = Lo ) = 1/2, similarly, we assume that P Eij = e1 =, · · · , =


P Eij = em = 1/m, because the variable Eij has no information provided.



Using P Eij and P Bi  Eij , P( Bi ) can be calculated as Equations (2) and (3):

P( Bi = Hi ) = P( Bi = Hi | Ei1 = e1 ) P( Ei1 = e1 ) + · · · + P( Bi = Hi | Ei1 = em ) P( Ei1 = em ) (2)

P( Bi = Lo ) = 1 − P( Bi = Hi ) (3)

Using the evidence judged by experts, each i P( Bi ) can be updated as the following steps:
Step 1. If expert panel-1 judges that variable Bi falls in decision criteria e1 , that is,
P∗ ( Ei1 ) = (1, 0, 0, · · ·), where evidence on Eij is denoted by P∗ Eij , the probabilities

P∗ ( Ei1 ) = (1, 0, 0, · · ·) are employed as evidence to update P( Bi = Hi ), as follows:

P∗ ( Bi = Hi ) = P( Bi = Hi | Ei1 = e1 ) P∗ ( Ei1 = e1 ) + · · · + P( Bi = Hi | Ei1 = em ) P∗ ( Ei1 = em )

(4)
= P( Bi = Hi | Ei1 = e1 ) P∗ ( Ei1 = e1 )

where P( Bi = Hi ) updated by evidence is denoted by P∗ ( Bi = Hi ).

Step 2. If expert panel-2 judges that variable Bi falls in decision criteria e2 , that is,
P ( Ei2 ) = (0, 1, 0, · · ·), the probabilities P∗ ( Ei2 ) = (0, 1, 0, · · ·) are employed as evidence to update
∗

P∗ ( Bi = Hi ), as follows:

P∗∗ ( Bi = Hi ) = P∗ ( Bi = Hi | Ei2 = e1 ) P∗ ( Ei2 = e1 ) + · · · + P∗ ( Bi = Hi | Ei2 = em ) P∗ ( Ei2 = em )

= P∗ ( Bi = Hi | Ei2 = e2 ) P∗ ( Ei2 = e2 )
(5)
where P∗ ( Bi = Hi | Ei2 = e2 ) can be calculated as follows:

P( Ei2 =e2 | Bi = Hi ) P∗ ( Bi = Hi )
P∗ ( Bi = Hi | Ei2 = e2 ) = P( Ei2 =e2 )
P( Ei2 =e2 | Bi = Hi ) P∗ ( Bi = Hi ) (6)
= P( Ei2 =e2 | Bi = Hi ) P∗ ( Bi = Hi )+ P( Ei2 =e2 | Bi = Lo ) P∗ ( Bi = Lo )
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 7 of 17

For a selected road segment, P( Bi = Hi ) can be updated on the basis of the evidence judged by
different expert panels until the evidence judged by expert panel-n is used. Finally, as all evidence is
added into the BN model, the more reasonable P( Bi = Hi ) is computed. The updated probabilities
P( Bi = Hi ) are integrated into the total probability P( R = Hi ), as follows:

k
P( R = Hi ) = ∑ ωi P( Bi = Hi) (7)
i =1

where ωi is the weighting values of the respective decision factors. In this paper, the weighting values
of decision factors are not the study objective, thus we can assume that ωi = 1/k. Further research is
required to discuss the weighting values.
Given the values of P( R = Hi ), we define the safety risk levels on a scale of one to five (one being
the lowest safety risk and five being the highest) (Table 3).

Table 3. Safety risk levels on a scale of one to five.

Band Values Safety Risk Level

0 ≤ P( R = Hi ) < 0.2 1-level
0.2 ≤ P( R = Hi ) < 0.4 2-level
0.4 ≤ P( R = Hi ) < 0.6 3-level
0.6 ≤ P( R = Hi ) < 0.8 4-level
0.8 ≤ P( R = Hi ) < 1 5-level

3.2. Safety Risk Factors for Rural Roadsides

Table 4 summarizes the main factors contributing to rural roadside safety risk/ROR crashes in
previous studies.

Table 4. Studies on main factors related to roadside safety risk/run-off-road (ROR) crashes.

SN Main Factors References

1 Horizontal curves radius
2 Longitudinal gradient
Liu and Subramanian (2009) [23], Mclaughlin et al. (2009) [16], Wei and Zhang (2011) [11],
Lord et al. (2011) [2], Fang et al. (2013) [12], Eustace et al. (2014) [21], Roque et al. (2015) [22],
Roque and Jalayer (2018) [24], Loprencipe et al. (2018) [6]
Liu and Subramanian (2009) [23], Li, Ma and Wang (2009) [7], Wei and Zhang (2011) [11],
Fang et al. (2013) [12], Eustace et al. (2014) [21], Roque and Jalayer (2018) [24],
Loprencipe et al. (2018) [6]

3 Side slope grade Stonex (1960) [15], Zegeer et al. (1987) [4], Lee and Mannering (2002) [19],
Mclaughlin et al. (2009) [16], Li, Ma and Wang (2009) [7], Pardillo-Mayora et al. (2010) [8],
You et al. (2010) [5], Lord et al. (2011) [2], Roque et al. (2015) [22], Jalayer and Zhou (2016) [14]
4 Side slope height
Zegeer et al. (1987) [4], Lee and Mannering (2002) [19], Sperry et al. (2008) [18], Li, Ma and Wang
(2009) [7], Pardillo-Mayora et al. (2010) [8], You et al. (2010) [5], Wei and Zhang (2011) [11],
Distance between roadway edge
5 Lord et al. (2011) [2], Esawey and Sayed (2012 [9], Fang et al. (2013) [12],
and non-traversable obstacles
Fitzpatrick et al. (2014) [17], Park and Abdel-Aty (2015) [10], Jalayer and Zhou (2016) [14],
Roque and Jalayer (2018) [24]
Density of discrete non-traversable Stonex (1960) [15], Lee and Mannering (2002) [19], Holdridge et al. (2005) [20],
6 obstacles (e.g., trees, utility poles, Sperry et al. (2008) [18], Li, Ma and Wang (2009) [7], You et al. (2010) [5], Esawey and Sayed
buildings, etc.) (2012) [9], Ayati et al. (2012) [13], Park and Abdel-Aty (2015) [10], Loprencipe et al. (2018) [6]
Density of continuous
Stonex (1960) [15], Holdridge et al. (2005) [20], Sperry et al. (2008) [18],
non-traversable obstacles (e.g., worn
7 Li, Ma and Wang (2009) [7], You et al. (2010) [5], Ayati et al. (2012) [13],
out roadside safety barriers,
Loprencipe et al. (2018) [6]
unprotected drainage channels, etc.)
8 Bridge rails Holdridge et al. (2005) [20]
9 Speed limit Liu and Subramanian (2009) [23]
10 Lighting conditions Liu and Subramanian (2009) [23]
11 Traffic volume Lord et al. (2011) [2]
12 Sight distance Wei and Zhang (2011) [11]
13 Lane width Roque and Jalayer (2018) [24]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 8 of 17

As shown in Table 4, the first seven factors are frequently perceived as the significant factors
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 8 of 17
in previous studies, while the remaining six factors have only appeared once, respectively, in one
literature. Takinginto
literature. Taking intoaccount
accountthe thefrequency
frequency and
and significance
significance of each
of each factor
factor in previous
in previous research
research and
and considering the scalability of factor data, we perceive the first seven factors
considering the scalability of factor data, we perceive the first seven factors as the key factors in this as the key factors in
this
paper. paper.
Apart
Apart from
from thethe first
first seven
seven factors
factors identified
identified inin most
most literature,
literature, fewfew studies
studies have perceived access
have perceived access
point
point density as a key factor contributing to ROR crashes, which we address in thisThe
density as a key factor contributing to ROR crashes, which we address in this paper. previous
paper. The
studied
previousresults
studiedshow that
results showaccess
thatpoint
accessdensity is positively
point density correlated
is positively with crash
correlated frequency
with crash and
frequency
severity
and severity[25,26]. UsingUsing
[25,26]. the definition of access
the definition point in
of access Access
point Management
in Access Manual,Manual,
Management this paperthisdefines
paper
access point as a node that connects the main road to other levels
defines access point as a node that connects the main road to other levels of roads; compared of roads; compared to the to
main
the
road,
main theirroad,design standards
their design are relatively
standards lower and
are relatively haveand
lower fewer constraints,
have specificallyspecifically
fewer constraints, including
classified
includingroad, farmland
classified road,road,
farmlandand residential road (as shown
road, and residential road in (asFigure
shown2).inFor example,
Figure 2). For in example,
Figure 2,
there are 20 access points located on the two sides of a 658 m main road.
in Figure 2, there are 20 access points located on the two sides of a 658 m main road. This means This means that the access
that
point density
the access pointof this roadof
density is this
30.4road
point/km,
is 30.4 which
point/km,will which
seriously willaffect the operation
seriously affect theofoperation
the main traffic
of the
flow.
main We demonstrate
traffic that access point
flow. We demonstrate density
that access is indeed
point density relevant
is indeedto roadside
relevant tosafety risk and
roadside affects
safety risk
the
andreliability
affects theofreliability
the evaluation
of the results
evaluationby an efficient
results and
by an practical
efficient andapproach
practicalinapproach
Section 4.3.
in subsection
4.3. In summary, a set of eight safety risk factors is defined, which includes horizontal curves radius B1 ,
longitudinal gradient B2 , distance between roadway edge and non-traversable obstacles B3 , side slope
grade B4 , side slope height B5 , access point density B6 , density of discrete non-traversable obstacles
(e.g., trees, utility poles, buildings, etc.), and B7 , density of continuous non-traversable obstacles
(e.g., worn out roadside safety barriers, unprotected drainage channels, etc.) B8 . The continuous
non-traversable obstacles refer to the obstacles when the longitudinal length is more than 3 m, or the
longitudinal distance between two adjacent discrete obstacles is less than 5 m [11,12].

Classified road
Residential road
Residential road
Main road

Farmland road

Access point

Figure 2. Definition of access point.

4.
4. Case
Case Study
Study

4.1. Study Area

4.1. Study Area
The case study area is a rural area of 62 km2 (3 km by 2 km) in Nantong, China (as shown
The case study area is a rural area of 6 km (3 km by 2 km) in Nantong, China (as shown in Figure
in Figure 3). There are many rivulets, access points, residential constructions, and non-traversable
3). There are many rivulets, access points, residential constructions, and non-traversable obstacles
obstacles (e.g., trees, utility poles, etc.) along the roadsides in the study area. The portion of the
(e.g., trees, utility poles, etc.) along the roadsides in the study area. The portion of the rural roads
rural
used inroads
this used
studyinconsists
this study consists
of 19.42 of 19.42 km
km two-lane two-lane
roads, roads,
including 5.16including 5.16
third-class third-class
roads (3.5 m ofroads
lane
(3.5 m of lane width) and 14.26 fourth-class roads (3 m of lane width). The others are arterial highways
width) and 14.26 fourth-class roads (3 m of lane width). The others are arterial highways (e.g.,
(e.g., provincial trunk highway) or substandard roads (e.g., farmland road, residential road, etc.),
provincial trunk highway) or substandard roads (e.g., farmland road, residential road, etc.), which
which
are notare not within
within the of
the scope scope of assessment.
assessment. Rural roadway
Rural roadway and roadside
and roadside feature
feature data obtained
data were were obtained
from
from the Nantong DOT and Google Earth Pro. The data were processed to assess and
the Nantong DOT and Google Earth Pro. The data were processed to assess and classify the safety classify the
safety
risk ofrisk ofroadsides.
rural rural roadsides.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 9 of 17
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 9 of 17

Figure 3. Study area.

For the sake of brevity, roadside

roadside safety
safety risk assessment is elaborated by using a straight segment
with aa length
length of of 200
200mmbelonging
belongingtotothe thenetwork
networkininthe thestudy
studyarea
areaasas
ananexample
examplesegment
segment (as(as
shown
shownin
Figure
in Figure3). 3).
WithWithregard to the
regard riskrisk
to the factors of this
factors example
of this examplesegment, the horizontal
segment, curves
the horizontal radius
curves is over
radius is
60 m, the longitudinal gradient is 2.5%, the distance between roadway edge and
over 60 m, the longitudinal gradient is 2.5%, the distance between roadway edge and obstacles is 0.8 obstacles is 0.8 m,
thethe
m, side slope
side slopegrade is 1:1.5,
grade thethe
is 1:1.5, side
sideslope
slopeheight
heightisis1.51.5m,
m,the
theaccess
accesspoint
pointdensity
densityisis11
11point/km,
point/km,
density of
the density ofdiscrete
discretenon-traversable
non-traversableobstacles
obstaclesis is 8 obstacle/km,
8 obstacle/km, andand the density
the density of continuous
of continuous non-
non-traversable
traversable obstacles
obstacles is 0.08is 0.08
km/km.km/km.

4.2. Roadside
4.2. Roadside Safety
Safety Risk
Risk Evaluation
Evaluation
To
To evaluate
evaluate the
the rural
rural roadside
roadside safety
safety risk
risk of
of the
the study
study area
area shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 3,3, we
we divided
divided eacheach
rural road
rural road into
into aadefined
definedsegment
segmentlength
lengthofof200
200m.m.IfIfthe
thelast
lastsegment
segment ofof
rural road
rural roadwaswaslessless
than 200200
than m,
we also defined it as a segment. Therefore, the whole road network had 99 segments.
m, we also defined it as a segment. Therefore, the whole road network had 99 segments. Each segment Each segment
data of
data of roadway
roadway and and roadside
roadside features
features were
were sourced
sourced fromfrom Nantong
NantongDOT DOTandandGoogle
GoogleEarth
EarthPro.Pro.
In
In order
order to
to ensure
ensurerelative
relativeobjectivity
objectivityand
andreliability
reliabilityofofexpert
expertjudgments,
judgments, weweinvited
invited 2424
experts in
experts
traffic safety domain from different institutions, including experts from departments
in traffic safety domain from different institutions, including experts from departments of of transportation,
research institutes,
transportation, universities,
research and engineering
institutes, universities,consultancies.
and engineering Theseconsultancies.
experts included Thesenineexperts
senior
engineers,nine
included eightsenior
professors, and seven
engineers, eight project managers.
professors, and seven The invited
project experts were
managers. Thedivided
invited into three
experts
panels for the comprehensive assessment. Through discussion within each panel,
were divided into three panels for the comprehensive assessment. Through discussion within each the decision criteria
of eachthe
panel, panel were criteria
decision confirmed. Table
of each 5 presents
panel the decision
were confirmed. criteria
Table of the respective
5 presents the decisionfactors
criteriaforofeach
the
expert panel.
respective factors for each expert panel.
Given the decision criteria of the respective factors for three expert panels (as shown in Table 5),
Table 5. Decision criteria of the respective factors for three expert panels.
a conditional probability table 𝑃(𝐸𝑖𝑗 |𝐵𝑖 ) could be calculated using Equation (1). Taking the distance
between roadway edge Expert obstacles 𝐵3 as an example
andPanel-1 (Table 5), the expert
Expert Panel-2 panel-1
Expert Panel-3has three
Factors
for 𝐸31 , P(B
decision criteriaCriteria namely 𝑒 , 𝑒
i = Hi|E1i1 = e
,
2k ) and 𝑒 .
Criteria
3 When a road segment
P(Bi = Hi|Ei2 = ek ) falls in
Criteria 𝐻𝑖, the conditional
P(Bi = Hi|E i3 = ek )
probability of 𝐵<30 3 falling in the 0.5 respective<20 decision criteria0.6 is: 𝑃(𝐸31<15 |
= 𝑒1 𝐵3 = 𝐻𝑖)0.7 = 0.5556 ,
𝑃(𝐸31 = 𝑒 |𝐵 =[30,60]
B1 2 3
𝐻𝑖) = 0.3333 , 0.3 𝑃(𝐸31 = 𝑒3|𝐵3[20,40)
= 𝐻𝑖) = 0.1111 0.4. Conversely, when a road
[15,30) 0.5 segment
falls in 𝐿𝑜 , the >60
conditional 0.1
probability [40,60]
of 𝐵 falling 0.2 the respective
in [30,45) decision 0.3criteria is:
(m) 3
- - >60 0.1 [45,60] 0.2
𝑃(𝐸31 = 𝑒1|𝐵3 = 𝐿𝑜) - = 0.2381 , 𝑃(𝐸 - 31 = 𝑒2 |𝐵3 =- 𝐿𝑜) = 0.3333-, 𝑃(𝐸31 = 𝑒3>60 |𝐵3 = 𝐿𝑜) = 0.42860.1 . In a
similar way, Table 6
>3.0
lists the conditional
0.5
probability
>4.0
𝑃(𝐸 |𝐵
3𝑗 0.6
3 ) for three expert
>3.0
panels. 0.5
B2 [1.0,3.0] 0.35 [2.0,4.0] 0.45 [2.0,3.0] 0.4
(%) <1.0
Table 5. Decision0.1criteria of the
[1.0,2.0)
respective factors0.3for three expert
[1.0,2.0)
panels. 0.25
- - <1.0 0.15 <1.0 0.1
Expert Panel-1 Expert Panel-2 Expert Panel-3
Factors
Criteria 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖|𝐸𝑖1 = 𝑒𝑘 ) Criteria 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖|𝐸𝑖2 = 𝑒𝑘 ) Criteria 𝑃(𝐵𝑖 = 𝐻𝑖|𝐸𝑖3 = 𝑒𝑘 )

𝐵1 <30 0.5 <20 0.6 <15 0.7

(m) [30,60] 0.3 [20,40) 0.4 [15,30) 0.5
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 10 of 17

Table 5. Cont.

Expert Panel-1 Expert Panel-2 Expert Panel-3

Factors
Criteria P(Bi = Hi|Ei1 = ek ) Criteria P(Bi = Hi|Ei2 = ek ) Criteria P(Bi = Hi|Ei3 = ek )
<1.0 0.5 <0.5 0.6 <0.5 0.6
[1.0,1.5] 0.3 [0.5,1.0) 0.4 [0.5,1.0) 0.45
B3
>1.5 0.1 [1.0,1.5] 0.2 [1.0,1.5) 0.35
(m)
- - >1.5 0.1 [1.5,2.0] 0.25
- - - - >2.0 0.1
>1:1 0.5 >1:1 0.6 >1:1 0.5
[1:4,1:1] 0.35 [1:2,1:1] 0.45 [1:3,1:1] 0.4
B4
<1:4 0.15 [1:4,1:2) 0.2 [1:4,1:3) 0.25
- - <1:4 0.1 <1:4 0.1
>1.5 0.4 >2.0 0.5 >3.0 0.6
B5 [0.5,1.5] 0.25 [1.0,2.0] 0.4 [2.0,3.0] 0.5
(m) <0.50 0.15 [0.5,1.0) 0.2 [1.0,2.0) 0.35
- - <0.50 0.1 <1.0 0.2
>20 0.6 >20 0.5 >25 0.6
B6 [10,20] 0.45 [10,20] 0.4 [10,25] 0.45
(point/km) <10 0.2 [5,10) 0.2 [5,15) 0.25
- - <5 0.1 <5 0.15
>30 0.4 >40 0.5 >30 0.5
B7 [10,30] 0.2 [20,40] 0.3 (20,30] 0.35
(obstacle/km) <10 0.1 <20 0.2 [10,20] 0.2
- - - - <10 0.1
>0.2 0.4 >0.3 0.45 >0.3 0.4
B8 [0.1,0.2] 0.25 [0.1,0.3] 0.3 (0.2,0.3] 0.35
(km/km) <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.15 [0.1,0.2] 0.2
- - - - <0.1 0.1

Given the decision criteria of the respective factors for three expert panels (as shown in Table 5),


a conditional probability table P Eij  Bi could be calculated using Equation (1). Taking the distance
between roadway edge and obstacles B3 as an example (Table 5), the expert panel-1 has three decision
criteria for E31 , namely e1 , e2 , and e3 . When a road segment falls in Hi, the conditional probability of
B3 falling in the respective decision criteria is: P( E31 = e1 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.5556, P( E31 = e2 | B3 = Hi ) =
0.3333, P( E31 = e3 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.1111. Conversely, when a road segment falls in Lo, the conditional
probability of B3 falling in the respective decision criteria is: P( E31 = e1 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2381,
P( E31 = e2 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.3333, P( E31 = e3 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.4286. In a similar way, Table 6 lists the


conditional probability P E3j  B3 for three expert panels.
  
Table 6. Conditional probability P E3j B3 for three expert panels.


Expert Panel Conditional Probability Falling in Hi Conditional Probability Falling in Lo

P( E31 = e1 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.5556 P( E31 = e1 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2381
Expert panel-1 P( E31 = e2 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.3333 P( E31 = e2 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.3333
P( E31 = e3 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.1111 P( E31 = e3 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.4286
P( E32 = e1 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.4615 P( E32 = e1 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.1481
P( E32 = e2 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.3077 P( E32 = e2 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2222
Expert panel-2
P( E32 = e3 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.1538 P( E32 = e3 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2963
P( E32 = e4 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.0769 P( E32 = e4 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.3333
P( E33 = e1 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.3429 P( E33 = e1 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.1231
P( E33 = e2 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.2571 P( E33 = e2 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.1692
Expert panel-3 P( E33 = e3 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.2000 P( E33 = e3 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2000
P( E33 = e4 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.1429 P( E33 = e4 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2308
P( E33 = e5 | B3 = Hi ) = 0.0571 P( E33 = e5 | B3 = Lo ) = 0.2769
of segments whose safety risk level belong to the 1–5 level are 50, 28, 10, 8, and 3, respectively. Figure
5 further visualizes the distribution of road segments with different levels of safety risk. As shown in
Figure 5, high-risk roadside segments of 4-level and 5-level are mainly concentrated in the dense
residential areas and locations with continuous sharp-curves.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 11 of 17
To identify the factors contributing to the relatively high-risk level of rural roadsides, 11 high-
risk segments (Figure 5) are selected and defined with the alpha-numerical code 𝑆𝑟 , where 𝑟 ranges
from 1Taking 𝑆1 , 𝑆example
to 11. the 4 , and 𝑆8segment
are located
as anin example
the dense(Figure
residential
3), the areas with many
distance between residential
roadway access
edge
points and discrete non-traversable obstacles, such as utility poles and buildings
and obstacles B3 is 0.8 m. Table 5 shows that B3 falls into criteria e1 of variable E31 , criteria e2 of along the roadsides,
and the distance
variable E32 , and between
criteria e2roadway
of variableedgeE33and obstacles is
, respectively. P∗ less
( E31 )than 0),𝑆P2 ∗ (and
= (1,1 0,m. E32 ) 𝑆=3 are
(0, 1,also
0, 0),
concentrated
P ( E33 ) = (0, 1, 0, 0, 0) are employed as evidence to update P( B3 = Hi ) using Equationare
∗ in the dense residential areas with two continuous sharp-curves whose radii (2)less
and
than 30 m,steps,
updated whichPmay ( B3 =cause vehicle
Hi ) = 0.6779.run-off-road
Similarly, the crashes in the
updated absence ofoftraffic
probability othercalming
variables measures
Bi can be
tocalculated
reduce vehiclein the speed. The sideThen,
same manner. slopeusing
grade (side slope
Equation height)
(7), this of 𝑆5 segment’s
example and 𝑆7 are P(1:1.5
R = Hi (1.5) =
m)0.3520
and
1:1 (1.1 m), respectively,
and its roadside safety risk are and 𝑆 has a long longitudinal slope with a gradient of 2.8%,
7 classified as 2-level. The above calculation results were calculated resulting in by
a
higher
BN tools 𝑆6 and 𝑆11 are due to the continuous non-traversable obstacles, which are unprotected
risk.GeNie2.0.
drainage channels
Figure 4 shows along the roadsides.
the roadside safetyThe
riskkey high-risk
evaluation factors
results for 𝑆9 are
calculated by sharp-curve
GeNie2.0. The and higherof
number
density
segments of residential
whose safety access
risk points. 𝑆10 has
level belong two1–5
to the continuous sharp-curves
level are 50, with
28, 10, 8, and radii less than
3, respectively. 25 m 5
Figure
and unprotected drainage channels along the roadsides. The evaluated
further visualizes the distribution of road segments with different levels of safety risk. As shownresults highlight that the
aforementioned factors have a more significant impact on the safety risk of
in Figure 5, high-risk roadside segments of 4-level and 5-level are mainly concentrated in the denserural roadsides. For these
high-risk
residential factors,
areas weandcan take some
locations with safety management
continuous measures and install the safety facilities to
sharp-curves.
reduce the safety risk level of these rural roadsides.
1
0.9 5-Level
0.8
0.7 4-Level
0.6
P(R=Hi)

0.5 3-Level
0.4
0.3 2-Level
0.2
0.1 1-Level
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Segment Number

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public HealthFigure

2019, 16,
4. Safety risk levels distribution for each segment. 12 of 17
Figure 4. Safety risk levels distribution for each segment.

1
5

2
6

7
10
8

9 3

11

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Safety
Safety risk
risk levels distribution in
levels distribution in the study area.
the study area.

4.3. Effectiveness of Roadside

To identify the Safety Risk Evaluation
factors contributing Resultshigh-risk level of rural roadsides, 11 high-risk
to the relatively
segments (Figure 5) are selected and defined with the alpha-numerical code Sr , where r ranges from
To validate the effectiveness of the evaluation method and results, we obtained the historical
1 to 11. S1 , S4 , and S8 are located in the dense residential areas with many residential access points
ROR crash data for a two year period (2015 to 2016) from the Nantong Department of Traffic Police
and discrete non-traversable obstacles, such as utility poles and buildings along the roadsides, and the
(DOTP). The locations of crashes are reported as road addresses or intersections, which are geocoded
distance between roadway edge and obstacles is less than 1 m. S2 and S3 are also concentrated in the
to the rural road network in the study area. Table 7 illustrates the crash severity and crash frequency
dense residential areas with two continuous sharp-curves whose radii are less than 30 m, which may
in the study area.

Table 7. Crash severity and crash frequency from 2015 to 2016 in the study area.

Category (Coefficient) Frequency Percentage

Crash severity Fatal (2.0) 12 6.0%
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 12 of 17

cause vehicle run-off-road crashes in the absence of traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed.
The side slope grade (side slope height) of S5 and S7 are 1:1.5 (1.5 m) and 1:1 (1.1 m), respectively,
and S7 has a long longitudinal slope with a gradient of 2.8%, resulting in a higher risk. S6 and S11 are
due to the continuous non-traversable obstacles, which are unprotected drainage channels along the
roadsides. The key high-risk factors for S9 are sharp-curve and higher density of residential access
points. S10 has two continuous sharp-curves with radii less than 25 m and unprotected drainage
channels along the roadsides. The evaluated results highlight that the aforementioned factors have
a more significant impact on the safety risk of rural roadsides. For these high-risk factors, we can take
some safety management measures and install the safety facilities to reduce the safety risk level of
these rural roadsides.

4.3. Effectiveness of Roadside Safety Risk Evaluation Results

To validate the effectiveness of the evaluation method and results, we obtained the historical ROR
crash data for a two year period (2015 to 2016) from the Nantong Department of Traffic Police (DOTP).
The locations of crashes are reported as road addresses or intersections, which are geocoded to the
rural road network in the study area. Table 7 illustrates the crash severity and crash frequency in the
study area.

Table 7. Crash severity and crash frequency from 2015 to 2016 in the study area.

Category (Coefficient) Frequency Percentage

Crash severity Fatal (2.0) 12 6.0%
Injury (1.5) 76 38.2%
Property Damage Only (PDO) (1.0) 111 55.8%
No Crash (NC) (0) 0 0.0%
Total 199 100%
Crash frequency (number of ROR crashes per segment) 0 8 8.1%
1 22 22.2%
2 35 35.4%
3 25 25.2%
≥4 9 9.1%
Total 99 100%

To make ROR crash data comparable to the safety risk, a crash severity index (CSI) is introduced
to represent the crash severity per segment. The CSI can be defined on crash frequency and crash
severity, and calculated as follows:

CSI = α f atal n f atal + αinjury ninjury + α PDO n PDO + α NC n NC (8)

where α f atal , αinjury , α PDO , and α NC are the crash severity coefficients of fatal, injury, property damage
only, and no crash, respectively. n f atal , ninjury , n PDO , and n NC are crash frequency of fatal, injury,
property damage only, and no crash, respectively (as shown in Table 7).
Figure 6 shows the distribution of road segments with different levels of CSI calculated by
Equation (8). Compared to Figure 5, road segments with a higher safety risk level tend to have a higher
value of CSI. According to the comparison of CSI and P( R = Hi ), Figure 7 shows that 87.9% of
all segments’ CSI and P( R = Hi ) values fall into the same risk level, and among the 12 high-risk
segments, only one segment’s CSI and P( R = Hi ) value is not within the same risk level. Consequently,
it is reasonable to assume that the greater the safety risk level is, the higher the CSI value is. As shown
in Figure 8, the polynomial regression results between the safety risk levels and CSI have a correlation
coefficient of 0.8538, suggesting a high correlation between safety risk levels and CSI. These studied
results show that the proposed method can be used to effectively evaluate the safety risk of rural
roadsides, and this BN-based approach can cope with the uncertainty of different decision criteria
judged by different expert panels.
Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the greater the safety risk level is, the higher the CSI
Consequently,
value is. As shown it is in
reasonable
Figure 8, totheassume that the
polynomial greater the
regression safety
results risk level
between is, the risk
the safety higher the and
levels CSI
value is. As shown in Figure 8, the polynomial regression results between the safety
CSI have a correlation coefficient of 0.8538, suggesting a high correlation between safety risk levels risk levels and
CSI CSI.
and haveThese
a correlation coefficient
studied results show of that
0.8538, suggestingmethod
the proposed a high can
correlation
be used between safety
to effectively risk levels
evaluate the
and CSI.
safety riskThese studied
of rural resultsand
roadsides, show thisthat the proposed
BN-based method
approach can be
can cope used
with thetouncertainty
effectively evaluate the
of different
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 13 of 17
safety risk
decision of rural
criteria roadsides,
judged and this
by different BN-based
expert approach can cope with the uncertainty of different
panels.
decision criteria judged by different expert panels.

Figure 6. Levels of crash severity index (CSI) distribution in the study area.
Figure 6. Levels of crash severity index (CSI) distribution in the study area.
Figure 6. Levels of crash severity index (CSI) distribution in the study area.
area.
CSI P(R=Hi)
10 CSI P(R=Hi) 1
CSI P(R=Hi) High-risk
9
10 0.9
1
10 High-risk 1
89 High-risk 0.8
0.9
index）

9 0.9
78 0.7
0.8
index）

8 0.8
index）
severity

67 0.6
0.7

P(R=Hi)
7 0.7
severity

56 0.5
0.6

P(R=Hi)
severity

6 0.6
CSI （Crash

P(R=Hi)
45 0.4
0.5
5 0.5
（Crash

34 0.3
0.4
（Crash

4 0.4
23 0.2
0.3
CSICSI

3 0.3
12 0.1
0.2
2 0.2
01 00.1
10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.1
0 0
Segment Number
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
0 10 20 30 40 Segment50Number 60 70 80 90 100
Segment Number
Figure 7. Comparison of CSI and P(R=Hi) (an experiment group).
Figure 7. Comparison of CSI and P(R=Hi) (an experiment group).
Figure 7. Comparison of CSI and P(R=Hi) (an experiment group).
Figure 7. Comparison of CSI and P(R=Hi) (an experiment group).
10
10
9
index）

10
89
index）

9
index）

78
8
severity

67
7 R²= 0.8538
severity

56
severity

6 R²= 0.8538
（Crash

45 R²= 0.8538
5
（Crash

34
（Crash

4
23
CSI

3
12
CSI

2
CSI

01
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 Safety Risk
3 Levels 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Safety Risk Levels
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Safety
Safetyrisk
risk levels versus
levelsSafety
versus CSI
Risk (an
(an experiment
CSILevels experiment group).
group).
Figure 8. Safety risk levels versus CSI (an experiment group).
To validate
validatethe Figure 8. Safety
theimportance
importance risk levels versus
of factoring CSI (an experiment
the perceived access group).
To of factoring the perceived access pointpoint density
density in RORincrashes
ROR crashes
(which
(which
was To was notoften
validate
often thenot included
importance
included ofinfactoring
in previous previous
studies),thestudies),
we weaccess
perceived
used the usedpoint
the method
proposed proposed
densitytoinmethod to
thecompare
ROR crashes
compare (which
results
To validate the importance of factoring the perceived access point density in ROR crashes (which
the results
was withincluded
often not the perceived access studies),
in previous point density and the results
we used proposedwithout it. We
method removed the
to compare it from the
results
was often not included in previous studies), we used the proposed method to compare the results
set of factors and used the proposed approach to reevaluate the study area. Note that we defined the
results evaluated by a set of eight factors as an experiment group and those by a set of seven factors as
a control group. As shown in Figure 9, the comparison results show that only 62.6% of all segments’
CSI and P( R = Hi ) values fall into the same risk level in a control group, which is much lower than the
proportion in the experiment group. Specifically, among 12 high-risk segments, seven segments have
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 14 of 17
with the perceived access point density and the results without it. We removed it from the set of
with the
factors andperceived access point
used the proposed densitytoand
approach the results
reevaluate without
the study it. Note
area. We removed
that we definedit fromthe theresults
set of
factors andby
evaluated useda settheofproposed
eight factors approach
as an to reevaluategroup
experiment the studyandarea.
those Note
by athatsetwe of defined
seven factorsthe results
as a
evaluated
control by aAs
group. setshown
of eight in factors
Figure as an experiment
9, the comparisongroup resultsand show those
thatby a set
only of seven
62.6% of allfactors
segments’as a
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 14 of 17
control group. As shown in Figure 9, the comparison results
CSI and 𝑃(𝑅 = 𝐻𝑖) values fall into the same risk level in a control group, which is much lower than show that only 62.6% of all segments’
the and 𝑃(𝑅 =in𝐻𝑖)
CSIproportion thevalues
experiment fall into the same
group. risk levelamong
Specifically, in a control group,segments,
12 high-risk which is much sevenlower than
segments
the
have proportion
a lower a lower
risk level in the
risk level experiment
usingusing group.
the proposed
the proposed Specifically,
methodmethod thanthan among 12
the risk
the risk high-risk
levellevel
usingusing segments,
CSI.CSI. seven
Through
Through segments
analyzing
analyzing the
have
the
roadside a lower
roadside featuresrisk of
features level ofusing
these these
seventhe proposed
seven segments,
segments, method
we thanthese
we that
find find the risk
that theselevel using
haveCSI.
segments
segments ahave
high Through
adensity analyzing
high densityof accessof
the
access roadside
points, features
which is of
a these
completely seven segments,
ignored risk we
factorfind in that
the these
control
points, which is a completely ignored risk factor in the control group. Figure 10 illustrates that the segments
group. have
Figure a
10 high density
illustrates of
that
access
the
safety points,
safety
risk risk
levels which
levels is
are found a completely
are found ignored
to increase
to increase risk factor
in consistency
in consistency in the
with thewith control
value the group.
of value Figure
of CSI,
CSI, which 10
which
is in illustrates
good is in good
agreement that
the safety
agreement
with risk
withlevels
the findings the
in the are
findings found
experiment in totheincrease
experiment
group. in consistency thewith
group. Nevertheless,
Nevertheless, the value
correlation the of CSI, is
correlation
coefficient which is which
in good
coefficient
0.4252, is
is
agreement
0.4252, which with is thelowerfindings
than in
the the experiment
experiment group.
group. Nevertheless,
Furthermore,
lower than the experiment group. Furthermore, summary statistics for CSI corresponding to safety the
summarycorrelation coefficient
statistics for CSI is
0.4252,
corresponding
risk levels which toissafety
evaluated lowerbyrisk
thethanlevelstheevaluated
experiment experiment
group byand group.
the Furthermore,
experiment
control group group summary
and
are shown control
in Tablestatistics
group arefor
8. Table shownCSI
8 and
corresponding
in Table118.illustrate
Figure Table to8safety
and risk
thatFigure levels
the standard evaluated
11 illustrate that
deviation bythe theCSI
of experiment
standard group to
deviation
corresponding and
ofthecontrol
CSI group
corresponding
safety are shown
risk levels to
of the
the
in Table
safety risk8. Table
levels 8of and
the Figure
experiment 11 illustrate
group that
is the standard
significantly deviation
lower
experiment group is significantly lower than that of the control group. Therefore, the evaluation results than of CSI
that corresponding
of the control to
group.the
safety
using arisk
Therefore, setthelevels
of factors of the
evaluation thatexperiment
results using
includes thegroup
a setisof
access significantly
pointfactors
density lower
thatcanincludes than
thethat
characterize of the
access
the point
safetycontrol
density
risk ofgroup.
can
rural
Therefore,
characterize the
the evaluation
safety risk results
of rural using a
roadsides set of
more factors that
accurately,
roadsides more accurately, which means a risk factor of access point density significantly contributes includes
which the
means access
a riskpoint
factordensity
of can
access
characterize
point
to thedensity
safety riskthe safety
significantly risk of rural roadsides more accurately,
contributes to the safety risk of rural roadsides.
of rural roadsides. which means a risk factor of access
point density significantly contributes to the safety risk of rural roadsides.
CSI P(R=Hi)
10 CSI P(R=Hi) 1
High-risk
9
10 0.9
1
High-risk
89 0.8
0.9
index）

78 0.7
0.8
index）
severity

67 0.6
0.7

P(R=Hi)
severity

56 0.5
0.6

P(R=Hi)
CSI （Crash

45 0.4
0.5
CSI （Crash

34 0.3
0.4

23 0.2
0.3

12 0.1
0.2

01 00.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 0
Segment Number
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Segment Number
Figure 9. Comparison of CSI and P(R = Hi) (a control group).
Figure 9. Comparison of CSI and P(R = Hi) (a control group).
Figure 9. Comparison of CSI and P(R = Hi) (a control group).
10
10
9
index）

89
index）

78
severity

67
severity

56
R²= 0.4252
（Crash

45
R²= 0.4252
（Crash

34
23
CSICSI

12
01
0 1 2 3 4 5
13 Levels
Safety Risk 2 4 5
Safety Risk Levels
Figure10. Safetyrisk
Figure 10.Safety risklevels
levelsversus
versusCSI
CSI(a
(acontrol
controlgroup).
group).
Figure10. Safety risk levels versus CSI (a control group).
Table 8. Summary statistics for CSI corresponding to safety risk levels.
Table 8. Summary statistics for CSI corresponding to safety risk levels.
Table
CSI 8. Summary statistics
Corresponding for CSI corresponding to safety riskto
levels.
CSI Corresponding to to Levels
Levels in in
anan CSI
CSICorresponding
Corresponding Levels
to in in
Levels a a
Experiment Group Control Group
Experiment Group
CSI Corresponding to Levels in an Control Group
CSI Corresponding to Levels in a
Levels
Levels Mean Mean SD SD
Experiment Min.
Group
Min. Max.
Max. Mean
Mean SDControl
SD Min.
GroupMin. Max. Max.
Levels
1 1 Mean SD
1.32 1.32 0.8410.841 Min.
0.0 Max.
4.0
4.0 Mean
1.72
1.72 SD
1.087
1.087 0.0 Min.
0.0 5.5Max.
5.5
1 2 1.32 2.95 0.841 0.772 0.0
1.0 4.0
5.0 1.72
2.82 1.087 0.0 0.0 9.0 5.5
1.965
3 4.90 1.020 3.5 7.0 5.10 1.758 3.0 8.0
4 6.69 0.496 6.0 7.5 5.31 2.076 1.0 7.5
5 8.83 0.624 8.0 9.5 6.33 2.461 3.5 9.5
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 15 of 17

2 2.95 0.772 1.0 5.0 2.82 1.965 0.0 9.0

3 4.90 1.020 3.5 7.0 5.10 1.758 3.0 8.0
4 6.69 0.496 6.0 7.5 5.31 2.076 1.0 7.5
5 Res. Public
Int. J. Environ. 8.83 Health 2019,
0.62416, 1166 8.0 9.5 6.33 2.461 3.5 9.5 15 of 17

Control group Experiment group

10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00

Mean of CSI
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
Safety Risk Levels

Figure 11.
Figure Comparison of
11. Comparison of mean
mean and
and SD
SD of
ofCSI
CSIcorresponding
corresponding to
to levels
levels between
between an
an experiment
experiment group
group
and aa control
and control group.
group.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Previous studies relied heavily on the quality of ROR crash data to evaluate rural road safety
Previous studies relied heavily on the quality of ROR crash data to evaluate rural road safety
risk, but such data may not be available or complete in many rural areas due to lack of funding or
risk, but such data may not be available or complete in many rural areas due to lack of funding or
manmade errors. This study proposed a BN-based method using experts’ judgments on the conditional
manmade errors. This study proposed a BN-based method using experts’ judgments on the
probability of different safety risk factors to evaluate the safety risk of rural roadsides. By summarizing
conditional probability of different safety risk factors to evaluate the safety risk of rural roadsides. By
the roadside safety risk factors identified in previous studies and introducing a new factor that may
summarizing the roadside safety risk factors identified in previous studies and introducing a new
have a significant impact on roadside safety risk, eight factors were considered, including horizontal
factor that may have a significant impact on roadside safety risk, eight factors were considered,
curves radius, longitudinal gradient, side slope grade, side slope height, distance between roadway
including horizontal curves radius, longitudinal gradient, side slope grade, side slope height,
edge and non-traversable obstacles, access point density, density of discrete non-traversable obstacles,
distance between roadway edge and non-traversable obstacles, access point density, density of
and density of continuous non-traversable obstacles.
discrete non-traversable obstacles, and density of continuous non-traversable obstacles.
To validate the proposed method, a case study was conducted using a rural area (6 km2 ) with
To validate the proposed method, a case study was conducted using a rural area (6 km 2) with
19.42 km roads in Nantong, China. By comparing the safety risk levels of the proposed method and
19.42 km roads in Nantong, China. By comparing the safety risk levels of the proposed method and
CSI generated from ROR crash data from 2015–2016, the results show that the proposed method can
CSI generated from ROR crash data from 2015–2016, the results show that the proposed method can
generate a consistent result with ROR crash data, meaning the higher the safety risk levels are, the
generate a consistent result with ROR crash data, meaning the higher the safety risk levels are, the
higher the CSI is. Additionally, by comparing the evaluating results with the perceived access point
higher the CSI is. Additionally, by comparing the evaluating results with the perceived access point
density and the results without it, we also found that access point density significantly contributed to
density and the results without it, we also found that access point density significantly contributed
the safety risk of rural roadsides. These results demonstrate that the proposed method can cope with
to the safety risk of rural roadsides. These results demonstrate that the proposed method can cope
inconsistent expert judgments and can serve as a low-cost solution to evaluate the safety risk of rural
with inconsistent expert judgments and can serve as a low-cost solution to evaluate the safety risk of
roadsides, especially for areas with incomplete ROR crash data.
rural roadsides, especially for areas with incomplete ROR crash data.
A limitation of this study was that we could only obtain two year (2015–2016) data from Nantong
A limitation of this study was that we could only obtain two year (2015–2016) data from Nantong
DOTP due to government restrictions on traffic accident data disclosure. Additional studies are needed
DOTP due to government restrictions on traffic accident data disclosure. Additional studies are
to include three or more years of data to validate our research once such data are available to the public.
needed to include three or more years of data to validate our research once such data are available to
Note that the modeling precision relied on the decision criteria judged by the experts and rationality of
the public. Note that the modeling precision relied on the decision criteria judged by the experts and
safety risk factor identification. Therefore, for future research, it is worth strengthening the reliability
rationality of safety risk factor identification. Therefore, for future research, it is worth strengthening
of expert judgments by simulating the ROR crash scenarios to obtain a dataset of crash frequency and
the reliability of expert judgments by simulating the ROR crash scenarios to obtain a dataset of crash
severity and calculate the probabilities of ROR crashes caused by the respective safety risk factors.
frequency and severity and calculate the probabilities of ROR crashes caused by the respective safety
Another potential research direction is to include additional factors related to the roadside safety risk,
risk factors. Another potential research direction is to include additional factors related to the
such as lane width, sight distance, etc., which can potentially improve the quality of the proposed
roadside safety risk, such as lane width, sight distance, etc., which can potentially improve the quality
method in evaluating the safety risk of rural roadsides.
of the proposed method in evaluating the safety risk of rural roadsides.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.T.; methodology, T.T., S.Z.; validation, S.Z., Y.G.; formal analysis,
Y.C.; investigation, Y.C.; resources, X.Z; writing—original draft preparation, T.T., S.Z.; writing—review and editing,
T.T., Y.G.; supervision, X.Z.; funding acquisition, T.T., S.Z.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant numbers 11771225,
the Humanities and Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education in China, grant numbers 18YJCZH274,
the Applied Research Foundation of Social Science of Jiangsu Province, grant numbers 18SYC-020, and the
Nantong Science and Technology Innovation and Think Tank Project, grant numbers CXZK003.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 16 of 17

Acknowledgments: This study is also based on research supported by the NEXTRANS Center, the USDOT
Region 5 University Transportation Center at Purdue University. The authors are grateful for comments made by
anonymous referees.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Roadway Departure Safety; Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA): Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
2. Lord, D.; Brewer, M.A.; Fitzpatrick, K.; Geedipally, S.R.; Peng, Y. Analysis of Roadway Departure Crashes on
Two-Lane Rural Roads in Texas; Texas State Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
3. Tang, T.P.; Xu, X.Q. Design Guideline for Safety Protection Engineering for Rural Roads in Nantong;
Nantong Department of Transportation: Nantong, China, 2017.
4. Zegeer, C.V.; Hummer, J.; Reinfurt, D.; Herf, L.; Hunter, W. Safety Effects of Cross-Section Design for Two-Lane
Roads; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
5. You, K.S.; Sun, L.; Gu, W.J. Quantitative assessment of roadside safety on mountain road. J. Transp. Eng. Inf.
2010, 8, 49–55.
6. Loprencipe, G.; Moretti, L.; Gantisani, G.; Minati, P. Prioritization methodology for roadside and guardrail
improvement: Quantitative calculation of safety level and optimization of resources allocation. J. Traffic
Transp. Eng. (Engl. Ed.). 2018, 5, 348–360. [CrossRef]
7. Li, Y.; Ma, R.G.; Wang, L.F. Roadside accident-hazard assessment and on-guard protection gradation.
J. Saf. Environ. 2009, 9, 143–146.
8. Pardillo-Mayora, J.M.; Dominguez-Lira, C.A.; Jurado-Pina, R. Empirical calibration of a roadside
hazardousness index for Spanish two-lane rural roads. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 2018–2023. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
9. Esawey, M.E.; Sayed, T. Evaluating safety risk of locating above ground utility structures in the highway
right-of-way. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 49, 419–428. [CrossRef]
10. Park, J.; Abdel-Aty, M. Assessing the safety effects of multiple roadside treatments using parametric and
nonparametric approaches. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 83, 203–213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Wei, L.Y.; Zhang, Y. Application of set pair analysis to the road-side risk rating evaluation of rural roads.
China Saf. Sci. J. 2011, 21, 9–15.
12. Fang, Y.; Guo, Z.Y.; Li, Z.Y. Assessment model of roadside environment objective safety on two-lane road.
J. Tongji Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2013, 41, 1025–1030.
13. Ayati, E.; Pirayesh-Neghab, M.A.; Sadeghi, A.A.; Mohammadzadeh-Moghadam, A. Introducing roadside
hazard severity indicator based on evidential reasoning approach. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1618–1626. [CrossRef]
14. Jalayer, M.; Zhou, H.G. Evaluating the safety risk of roadside features for rural two-lane roads using
reliability analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 101–112. [CrossRef]
15. Stonex, K. Roadside Design for Safety; Proceedings of Highway Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 1960.
16. McLaughlin, S.B.; Hankey, J.M.; Klauer, S.K.; Dingus, T.A. Contributing Factors to Run-Off-Road Crashes and
Near-Crashes; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
17. Fitzpatrick, C.D.; Harrington, C.P.; Knodler, M.A., Jr.; Romoser, M.R.E. The influence of clear zone size and
roadside vegetation on driver behavior. J. Saf. Res. 2014, 49, 97–104. [CrossRef]
18. Sperry, R.; Latterell, J.; McDonald, T. Best Practices for Low-Cost Safety Improvements on Iowa’s Local Roads;
Iowa Department of Transportation: Ames, IA, USA, 2008.
19. Lee, J.; Mannering, F.L. Impact of roadside features on the frequency and severity of run-off-roadway
accidents: An empirical analysis? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2002, 34, 149–161. [CrossRef]
20. Holdridge, J.M.; Shnakar, V.N.; Ulfarsson, G.F. The crash severity impacts of fixed roadside objects. J. Saf. Res.
2005, 36, 139–147. [CrossRef]
21. Eustace, D.; Almuntairi, O.; Hovey, P.W.; Shoup, G. Using Decision Tree Modeling to Analyze Factors Contributing
to Injury and Fatality of Run-Off-Road Crashes in Ohio; Proceedings of Transportation Research Board:
Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
22. Roque, C.; Moura, F.; Cardoso, J.L. Detecting unforgiving roadside contributors through the severity analysis
of run-off-road crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 80, 262–273. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1166 17 of 17

23. Liu, C.; Subramanian, R. Factor Related to Fatal Single-Vehicle Run-Off-Road Crashes; National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA): Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
24. Roque, C.; Jalayer, M. Improving roadside design policies for safety enhancement using hazard-based
duration modeling. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 120, 165–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Williams, K.M.; Stover, V.G.; Dixon, K.K.; Demosthenes, P. Access Management Manual; Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
26. Levinson, H.S. Impacts of Access Management Techniques; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):
Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
27. Mbakwe, A.C.; Saka, A.A.; Choi, K.; Lee, Y.J. Alternative method of highway traffic safety analysis for
developing countries using delphi technique and Bayesian network. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 135–146.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Ona, J.D.; Lopez, G.; Mujalli, R.; Calvo, F.J. Analysis of traffic accidents on rural highways using Latent Class
Clustering and Bayesian Networks. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 51, 1–10. [CrossRef]
29. Ona, J.D.; Mujalli, R.O.; Calvo, F.J. Analysis of traffic accident injury severity on Spanish rural highways
using Bayesian networks. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 402–411. [CrossRef]
30. Gregoriades, A.; Mouskos, K.C. Black spots identification through a Bayesian Networks quantification of
accident risk index. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2013, 28, 28–43. [CrossRef]
31. Sun, J.; Sun, J. A dynamic Bayesian network model for real-time crash prediction using traffic speed
conditions data. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2015, 54, 176–186. [CrossRef]
32. Chen, F.; Chen, S.; Ma, X. Analysis of hourly crash likelihood using unbalanced panel data mixed logit model
and real-time driving environmental big data. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 65, 153–159. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Chen, F.; Chen, S. Injury severities of truck drivers in single- and multi-vehicle accidents on rural highway.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1677–1688. [CrossRef]
34. Ma, X.; Chen, S.; Chen, F. Multivariate space-time modeling of crash frequencies by injury severity levels.
Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2017, 15, 29–40. [CrossRef]
35. Wen, H.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, Q.; Lee, J.; Yuan, Q. Investigating spatial autocorrelation and spillover effects in
freeway crash-frequency data. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 219. [CrossRef]
36. Shi, L.; Huseynova, N.; Yang, B.; Li, C.; Gao, L. A cask evaluation model to assess safety in Chinese rural
roads. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3864. [CrossRef]
37. Fenton, N.; Neil, M.; Marsh, W.; Hearty, P.; Radliński, . On the effectiveness of early life cycle defect prediction
with Bayesian Nets. Empir. Softw. Eng. 2008, 13, 499–537. [CrossRef]
38. Fenton, N.; Radliński, .; Neil, M. Improved Bayesian Networks for software project risk assessment using
dynamic discretization. Softw. Eng. Techniq. De. Qual. 2009, 227, 139–148.
39. Dialsingh, I. Risk assessment and decision analysis with Bayesian networks. J. Appl. Stat. 2014, 41, 910.
[CrossRef]
40. Marquez, D.; Neil, M.; Fenton, N. Improved reliability modeling using Bayesian networks and dynamic
discretization. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2010, 95, 412–425. [CrossRef]
41. Fenton, N.; Neil, M. Decision support software for probabilistic risk assessment using Bayesian Networks.
IEEE Softw. 2014, 31, 21–26. [CrossRef]
42. Ha, J.S.; Seong, P.H. A method for risk-informed safety significance categorization using the analytic
hierarchy process and bayesian belief networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2004, 83, 1–15. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).